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

[Havetts]

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

You blame sniper for having conspiracy theories and then you come up with this, Hitch...

 

[Cimber]

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.


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

They said:
Beef: Very unlikely
Doping: equally very unlikely
Supplement: possible

so I am correct to say that CASs verdict sayd that it is very unlikely that the souce was doping.

Regarding him not gaining an advantage is just common sense. The minimal amount of clen gives no advantages, and since CAS rules out transfusion and doping he ofcourse didnt an advantage from that either.

Yes he coulndt prove the beef story (which CAS found just as unlikely as doping). Hence, he broke the rules and was banned. Pretty simple. That however does not make him a doper. Also, it depicts the limilations and pitfalls of the current rules (my point being u cant always prove your innocense, but that doesnt always make u guilty which is why civil courts often have the burden of proof reversed). Anyways, as I said I am generally not against strict liability, but when the judges find doping to be very unlikely maybe parts of it should be softened up, allowing for the use of common sense. I know u say they didnt aquit him of doping but they did find doping equally unlikely as the beef story, and found the supplement theory more much likely (possible vs very unlikely to use your words), and at the same time they give him max ban. Seems a bit weird imho, though I admit rules are rules, but maybe they need to be looked at then. But they probably wont since WADA are misusing the verdict to call him a cheater fx.

So to sum up: He broke the current (faulty?) rules? YES. Does that make him a doper/cheater? No, not not imo considering CAS verdict (doping very unlikely)

The way the system works atm u dont need to dope to get banned. Examples: strict liability (Contador) and whereabouts (Alex Rasmussen). The latter is still pending ofcourse. People just need to remember that.

 

[SiAp1984]

They said:
Beef: Very unlikely
Doping: equally very unlikely
Supplement: possible

so I am correct to say that CASs verdict sayd that it is very unlikely that the souce was doping.

*sigh* I understand the verdict and its context that CAS was prevented from using the plastiziser-test-results in a proper way because the test has not been varified yet (as the AC-team always was keen to stress from the very beginning, they know why). That's the only reason why they didn't write: "This guy was blood-doped to the gills and got contaminated blood infused after he did some clen-doping earlier the year to lose fat".

Contador is a cheat. Period.

 

[Cimber]

*sigh* I understand the verdict and its context that CAS was prevented from using the plastiziser-test-results in a proper way because the test has not been varified yet (as the AC-team always was keen to stress from the very beginning, they know why). That's the only reason why they didn't write: "This guy was blood-doped to the gills and got contaminated blood infused after he did some clen-doping earlier the year to lose fat".

Contador is a cheat. Period.

Thats boll_ocks. U are just drawing your own conclusion disregarding what CAS writes. I, on the other hand, am arguing based on CAS verdict, which is the best thing we can use atm (and not personal prejudice). I would have found the ban so much easier to digest had CAS conluded that they found the dopign theory more likely than the beef story, but they found the 2 explanations "equally unlikely". I would have prefered a verdict basically calling him a doper or a verdict clearing him. Its gets messy with a verdict inbetween (which is basically saying "we dont think u doped, but u broke the rules and will be banned for 2 years").

there is nothing in the CAS verdict that justify calling him a cheat/doper. Would have been much easier if there was though.

 

[hrotha]

The CAS verdict says a transfusion as the origin of the clen is highly unlikely, not that a transfusion by itself is unlikely. In fact, it's pretty hard to read the ruling and not believe Contador got a transfusion.

 

[Von Mises]

They said:
Beef: Very unlikely
Doping: equally very unlikely
Supplement: possible

so I am correct to say that CASs verdict sayd that it is very unlikely that the souce was doping.

Regarding him not gaining an advantage is just common sense. The minimal amount of clen gives no advantages, and since CAS rules out transfusion and doping he ofcourse didnt an advantage from that either.

Yes he coulndt prove the beef story (which CAS found just as unlikely as doping). Hence, he broke the rules and was banned. Pretty simple. That however does not make him a doper. Also, it depicts the limilations and pitfalls of the current rules (my point being u cant always prove your innocense, but that doesnt always make u guilty which is why civil courts often have the burden of proof reversed). Anyways, as I said I am generally not against strict liability, but when the judges find doping to be very unlikely maybe parts of it should be softened up, allowing for the use of common sense. I know u say they didnt aquit him of doping but they did find doping equally unlikely as the beef story, and found the supplement theory more much likely (possible vs very unlikely to use your words), and at the same time they give him max ban. Seems a bit weird imho, though I admit rules are rules, but maybe they need to be looked at then. But they probably wont since WADA are misusing the verdict to call him a cheater fx.
.

You interpretation is not correct.

1) CAS did not decide is Contador doper or not. Their focus was on clenbuterol, how did it get into Contador´s body. All three theories were assesed in clenbuterol´s context. (The Panel’s conclusions regarding the Blood Transfusion Theory 447. As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that the primary object of this appeal is the finding of a Prohibited Substance (clenbuterol) in the Athlete’s Sample.)

2) CAS specifically said that all three theories (meat, tranfusion, supplement) are in principle possible and all parties (UCI; WADA; Contador) agreed. Decision was not between very unlikely vs possible.

3) CAS decision does not mean that clenbuterol came from supplement ( 484. "This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened.") It just means that supplement was seen more likely than other two options.

4) If you read arbitral award, you can clearly see that supplement theory came pretty much out of blue. (465. According to Mr Contador, the Appellants’ supplement scenario is simply a fall-back position and is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever and amounts to the following
allegations:) Contador is right, though supplement is one of the three competing theories, WADA/UCI did not put lot of evidence into supplement theory. Their eggs were in the blood theory basket and it does seem (Contador pointed to it and CAS agreed ) that WADA/UCI tried to turn the case from clen to blood tranfusion. If you look only at blood tranfusion, case seems strong (at least for me), but if you add clenbuterol, the case is weaker.

 

[SiAp1984]

Thats boll_ocks. U are just drawing your own conclusion disregarding what CAS writes. I, on the other hand, am arguing based on CAS verdict, which is the best thing we can use atm (and not personal prejudice).
there is nothing in the CAS verdict that justify calling him a cheat/doper. Would have been much easier if there was though.

Hrothas opinion right under your post says it all.

It is absolutely correct to call Alberto a cheater because it is quite certain that he received a contaminated blood transfusion.

It was not to be expected that CAS would call him a cheater because it might have given him more room to appeal the decision- and CAS didn't need to do so to reach their verdict. It is not hte way judges work mentioning stuff not necessary for their opinion.

Only real important thing about the verdict is:

CAS did not state that he was not a cheater (and let him off).

BTW, it has been said here for several times: CAS did not have to rule on HOW the clen came into Albertos system. They just had to rule on if Alberto could prove that it got here unintentionally. And he failed to meet this threshold. The sentences referring to the supplement just felt to show that they considered this possibility.

 

[SiAp1984]

You interpretation is not correct.

1) CAS did not decide is Contador doper or not. Their focus was on clenbuterol, how did it get into Contador´s body. All three theories were assesed in clenbuterol´s context. (The Panel’s conclusions regarding the Blood Transfusion Theory 447. As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that the primary object of this appeal is the finding of a Prohibited Substance (clenbuterol) in the Athlete’s Sample.)

2) CAS specifically said that all three theories (meat, tranfusion, supplement) are in principle possible and all parties (UCI; WADA; Contador) agreed. Decision was not between very unlikely vs possible.

3) CAS decision does not mean that clenbuterol came from supplement ( 484. "This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened.") It just means that supplement was seen more likely than other two options.

4) If you read arbitral award, you can clearly see that supplement theory came pretty much out of blue. (465. According to Mr Contador, the Appellants’ supplement scenario is simply a fall-back position and is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever and amounts to the following
allegations:) Contador is right, though supplement is one of the three competing theories, WADA/UCI did not put lot of evidence into supplement theory. Their eggs were in the blood theory basket and it does seem (Contador pointed to it and CAS agreed ) that WADA/UCI tried to turn the case from clen to blood tranfusion. If you look only at blood tranfusion, case seems strong (at least for me), but if you add clenbuterol, the case is weaker.

Thanks. Great post!

 

[Nilsson]

You interpretation is not correct.

1) CAS did not decide is Contador doper or not. Their focus was on clenbuterol, how did it get into Contador´s body. All three theories were assesed in clenbuterol´s context. (The Panel’s conclusions regarding the Blood Transfusion Theory 447. As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that the primary object of this appeal is the finding of a Prohibited Substance (clenbuterol) in the Athlete’s Sample.)

2) CAS specifically said that all three theories (meat, tranfusion, supplement) are in principle possible and all parties (UCI; WADA; Contador) agreed. Decision was not between very unlikely vs possible.

3) CAS decision does not mean that clenbuterol came from supplement ( 484. "This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened.") It just means that supplement was seen more likely than other two options.

4) If you read arbitral award, you can clearly see that supplement theory came pretty much out of blue. (465. According to Mr Contador, the Appellants’ supplement scenario is simply a fall-back position and is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever and amounts to the following
allegations:) Contador is right, though supplement is one of the three competing theories, WADA/UCI did not put lot of evidence into supplement theory. Their eggs were in the blood theory basket and it does seem (Contador pointed to it and CAS agreed ) that WADA/UCI tried to turn the case from clen to blood tranfusion. If you look only at blood tranfusion, case seems strong (at least for me), but if you add clenbuterol, the case is weaker.

I can agree with this, except for the last conclusions you draw. In spite of clenbuterol indeed making the scenario (even) weaker, Contador did not exceed any limits in his passport (although, compared to other years, there were some fluctuations). UCI/WADA would never have pursued this theory if they weren't obliged to (because of the balance of probabilities and the Swiss law) nor would they have started a proper transfusion case based on the passport (because no lead) and plasticizers (not validated, not conclusive). The gathered arguments in favor of a transfusion scenario may sound overwhelming, but they aren't.

They are however damaging, so don't get me wrong: I din't say he didn't transfuse, only that there is no case against him. Also it probably wouldn't be fair to let him carry the can (on his own), because we know there are more suspicious riders out there (based on the IO-report and the leaked index) from a blood doping point of view...

 

[Cimber]

You interpretation is not correct.

1) CAS did not decide is Contador doper or not. Their focus was on clenbuterol, how did it get into Contador´s body. All three theories were assesed in clenbuterol´s context. (The Panel’s conclusions regarding the Blood Transfusion Theory 447. As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that the primary object of this appeal is the finding of a Prohibited Substance (clenbuterol) in the Athlete’s Sample.)

2) CAS specifically said that all three theories (meat, tranfusion, supplement) are in principle possible and all parties (UCI; WADA; Contador) agreed. Decision was not between very unlikely vs possible.

3) CAS decision does not mean that clenbuterol came from supplement ( 484. "This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened.") It just means that supplement was seen more likely than other two options.

4) If you read arbitral award, you can clearly see that supplement theory came pretty much out of blue. (465. According to Mr Contador, the Appellants’ supplement scenario is simply a fall-back position and is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever and amounts to the following
allegations:) Contador is right, though supplement is one of the three competing theories, WADA/UCI did not put lot of evidence into supplement theory. Their eggs were in the blood theory basket and it does seem (Contador pointed to it and CAS agreed ) that WADA/UCI tried to turn the case from clen to blood tranfusion. If you look only at blood tranfusion, case seems strong (at least for me), but if you add clenbuterol, the case is weaker.

CAS did find doping a "very unlikely" source for the clen (equally unlikely as Contadors beef story). And thats the point I am trying to make. Judging the wording in the verdict CAS finds supplement as a more likely source than the other 2 theories (again, I know that they dont say that it definately is the correct theory)

Thanks. Great post!

Not really since he missed my point

 

[Cimber]

This is from CAS:

"The Panel concluded that both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytica however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion
presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."

So as I said:

Beef and doping: equally unlikely
Food supplement: more likely than the other two theories.

And imo that is nothing in that verdict that indicated that he is a doper/cheater. But he did however break the rules ofcourse (but again breaking the rules =/= being a doper as we can see from this and possibly also from the Alex Rasmussen case)

 

[Von Mises]

I can agree with this, except for the last conclusions you draw. In spite of clenbuterol indeed making the scenario (even) weaker, Contador did not exceed any limits in his passport (although, compared to other years, there were some fluctuations). UCI/WADA would never have pursued this theory if they weren't obliged to (because of the balance of probabilities and the Swiss law) nor would they have started a proper transfusion case based on the passport (because no lead) and plasticizers (not validated, not conclusive). The gathered arguments in favor of a transfusion scenario may sound overwhelming, but they aren't.

They are however damaging, so don't get me wrong: I din't say he didn't transfuse, only that there is no case against him. Also it probably wouldn't be fair to let him carry the can (on his own), because we know there are more suspicious riders out there (based on the IO-report and the leaked index) from a blood doping point of view...

You are right, but I dont say that the case for blood transfusion was strong legal sense, I just said that for me personally (separated from clenbuterol) it seemed quite strong.

It looks like UCI/WADA wanted to turn this whole case from clenbuterol to solely blood transfusion, but CAS (rightfully)did not allow this.
For instance:
148. WADA raised a number of objections during the hearing, which were detailed /.../
b) WADA was prevented from examining its experts on crucial elements supporting its
blood transfusion scenario:
1) The use of phthalate-free bags;
2) The possible effect of ‘tubing’ in relation to the discussion on phthalate-free
bags; and
3) The volume of plasma needed to monitor a blood profile.

Also, remember this anonymous witness whom they wanted to testify about blood transfusion theory, but were not allowed etc.

I think that WADA/UCI had a complicated dilemma. Case opened with clenbuterol, but when UCI/WADA started to look at it more closely, they found other evidence – inconsistencies in blood values, phthalates etc and it seems that from this point they almost wanted to rebuild the case and make it about tranfusion, not clenbuterol.

Btw, you said that „Contador did not exceed any limits in his passport“, it may be true, but WADA pointed: 132. At their closing arguments, counsels for WADA also made reference to jurisprudence (TAS 2010/A/2308) in which allegedly a CAS Panel relied on the fact that an Athlete had inconsistencies in his blood values, albeit within the regulatory thresholds, as evidence for convicting an athlete for an anti-doping rule violation.

This case what WADA is reffering is Pellizotti and we all know how it ended.

 

[Von Mises]

This is from CAS:

"The Panel concluded that both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytica however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion
presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."

So as I said:

Beef and doping: equally unlikely
Food supplement: more likely than the other two theories.

And imo that is nothing in that verdict that indicated that he is a doper/cheater. But he did however break the rules ofcourse (but again breaking the rules =/= being a doper as we can see from this and possibly also from the Alex Rasmussen case)

I dont want to carry on, but I did not miss your point. Now you have cahnged your words, your original phrasing was different and gave different impression.

 

[Cimber]

I dont want to carry on, but I did not miss your point. Now you have cahnged your words, your original phrasing was different and gave different impression.

Its my bad if my point got lost in translation, but Imo I didnt change the wording. Anyways, I reckon we can agree that CAS finds both the beef theory as well as the doping theory equally unlikely while they find food supplement as the source to be more likely? If so I reckon we can also agree that there isnt really anything in the verdict that justifies calling Contador a doper?

 

[hrotha]

Its my bad if my point got lost in translation, but Imo I didnt change the wording. Anyways, I reckon we can agree that CAS finds both the beef theory as well as the doping theory equally unlikely while they find food supplement as the source to be more likely? If so I reckon we can also agree that there isnt really anything in the verdict that justifies calling Contador a doper?

See, no. That's the whole point we've been trying to make here:

The CAS verdict says a transfusion as the origin of the clen is highly unlikely, not that a transfusion by itself is unlikely. In fact, it's pretty hard to read the ruling and not believe Contador got a transfusion.

 

[Cimber]

See, no. That's the whole point we've been trying to make here:

Right, so feel free to reread CAS verdict and show me anything that suggests that CAS thinks that Contador doped (would make it easier for me to digest the ban and the rules). So far I have pointed out the section that, to me, clearly points out that CAS finds doping (and the beef) theories to be much less likely than food supplement. I cannot find any part of it where they indicate that he doped. Maybe I overlooked something (honestly), so pls copy the sections u feel suggest that CAS thinks tranfusion is likely.

The CAS verdict says a transfusion as the origin of the clen is highly unlikely, not that a transfusion by itself is unlikely. In fact, it's pretty hard to read the ruling and not believe Contador got a transfusion.

But this case is about clen? and besides, as I said I honestly didnt stumple across any sections were I was thinking they suggested transfusion in general was likely. But as said I might have missed it, so pls copy that part in.

 

[Biggut]

He didn't show how it got into his body. Therefor he has to be banned. If you don't have strict liability then you have to ditch the fight against dopers. So man up and swallow the ban, he is either guilty of doping, or not able to prove how it got there.

Personally I think the Spanish governing bodies are worse than useless, they have shown in athletics and cycling that they consider the status of the person being charged to be relevant. They have let their sportspeople get away with violations without any evidence to support their decision to let them off, about time this was taken up.

 

[ChrisE]

You are right, but I dont say that the case for blood transfusion was strong legal sense, I just said that for me personally (separated from clenbuterol) it seemed quite strong.

It looks like UCI/WADA wanted to turn this whole case from clenbuterol to solely blood transfusion, but CAS (rightfully)did not allow this.
For instance:
148. WADA raised a number of objections during the hearing, which were detailed /.../
b) WADA was prevented from examining its experts on crucial elements supporting its
blood transfusion scenario:
1) The use of phthalate-free bags;
2) The possible effect of ‘tubing’ in relation to the discussion on phthalate-free
bags; and
3) The volume of plasma needed to monitor a blood profile.

Also, remember this anonymous witness whom they wanted to testify about blood transfusion theory, but were not allowed etc.

I think that WADA/UCI had a complicated dilemma. Case opened with clenbuterol, but when UCI/WADA started to look at it more closely, they found other evidence – inconsistencies in blood values, phthalates etc and it seems that from this point they almost wanted to rebuild the case and make it about tranfusion, not clenbuterol.

Btw, you said that „Contador did not exceed any limits in his passport“, it may be true, but WADA pointed: 132. At their closing arguments, counsels for WADA also made reference to jurisprudence (TAS 2010/A/2308) in which allegedly a CAS Panel relied on the fact that an Athlete had inconsistencies in his blood values, albeit within the regulatory thresholds, as evidence for convicting an athlete for an anti-doping rule violation.

This case what WADA is reffering is Pellizotti and we all know how it ended.

Why is that? Unless I am missing something WADA had to give an explanation how it got into his body during the appeal. So, they tried to prove transfusion (with residual CB in it) but then they were not allowed to do that. WTF?

 

[Nilsson]

You are right, but I dont say that the case for blood transfusion was strong legal sense, I just said that for me personally (separated from clenbuterol) it seemed quite strong.
It looks like UCI/WADA wanted to turn this whole case from clenbuterol to solely blood transfusion, but CAS (rightfully)did not allow this.

I think that WADA/UCI had a complicated dilemma. Case opened with clenbuterol, but when UCI/WADA started to look at it more closely, they found other evidence – inconsistencies in blood values, phthalates etc and it seems that from this point they almost wanted to rebuild the case and make it about tranfusion, not clenbuterol.

I don't think this is the right line of thought. Like I said, the only reason why they pursued the transfusion scenario in the first place was because they had to, not because they wanted to or because it was a clear case. With pursuing the theory, of course, they had to gather arguments to show that a transfusion could have happened, more specifically a contaminated one that matched with the facts (which indeed made it more problematic). They, however, already had all his values and therefore could already have opened a proper blood doping case, if it had been possible or was thought the right thing to do...

Btw, you said that „Contador did not exceed any limits in his passport“, it may be true, but WADA pointed: 132. At their closing arguments, counsels for WADA also made reference to jurisprudence (TAS 2010/A/2308) in which allegedly a CAS Panel relied on the fact that an Athlete had inconsistencies in his blood values, albeit within the regulatory thresholds, as evidence for convicting an athlete for an anti-doping rule violation.

This case what WADA is reffering is Pellizotti and we all know how it ended.

Leaves the question why they haven't opened a proper blood doping case against Contador, or others? I guess the answer is very simple: because the inconsistencies aren't big enough and/or do not sufficiently correspond with a doping scenario. Neither with Contador and Wiggins, nor with Klöden and Martin, Van Den Broeck, Menchov or even Barredo and Popovych.

Also Ashenden had to admit that (although AC's values were off in 2010, compared to other years) he could not say that this was due to doping. Pointing to Pellizotti, therefore, is nothing more than trying to make a transfusion scenario more likely than the meat scenario, by stating that exceeding any limits is not required to assume a transfusion could have happened. Which isn't that remarkable if you keep in mind that the passport Off-score is very high, and in my opinion could be more tight (and perhaps even should, probably together with more flexibility in sanctioning) although that's different discussion

 

[Cimber]

He didn't show how it got into his body. Therefor he has to be banned. If you don't have strict liability then you have to ditch the fight against dopers. So man up and swallow the ban, he is either guilty of doping, or not able to prove how it got there.

No he is guilty of breaking the rules (hence the ban is basically ok), but according to CAS he is not guilty of doping.

Now the point I am trying to make is that a ban is not automatically the same as the rider being a doper. Its not always that black and white (though it is easier to see the world that way). Same goes with Alex Rasmussen where everyone in the cycling world agrees that he has just been messy and unorganised but isnt a doper. Mind that they dont say he shouldnt be banned for breaking the rules, but merely that he isnt a doper. So again: a ban is not always = being a doper.

 

[hrotha]

Right, so feel free to reread CAS verdict and show me anything that suggests that CAS thinks that Contador doped (would make it easier for me to digest the ban and the rules). So far I have pointed out the section that, to me, clearly points out that CAS finds doping (and the beef) theories to be much less likely than food supplement. I cannot find any part of it where they indicate that he doped. Maybe I overlooked something (honestly), so pls copy the sections u feel suggest that CAS thinks tranfusion is likely.



But this case is about clen? and besides, as I said I honestly didnt stumple across any sections were I was thinking they suggested transfusion in general was likely. But as said I might have missed it, so pls copy that part in.

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5648/5048/0/FINAL20AWARD202012.02.06.pdf
Paragraphs 334-455.
Re-read them.

 

[Biggut]

Climber,

I think in your rush to defenc Contador you have not read what I have posted properly.

I said that he is either

a) Guilty of doping, and let's be clear there was no statement by CAS saying that it was categorically not doping just that it was not likely.

OR

b) Unable to prove how it got there.

In both cases there has to be a ban, otherwise all anybody has to do is come up with enough untestable hypotheses that they get let off when they have been doping to the gills. You can only test for whether a substance is presnt, not how it got there or whether it was there intentionally. So if he falls on count b, ie unable to prove how it got there he has to be banned.

In your world only somebody who admits it should be called a doper, is it any wonder in your world that nobody comeas forward and admits the extent of the problem. Keep denying and never be branded a doper.

 

[Polish]

The part that bothers me most about the Alberto Ruling is that it renders "ChainGate" obsolete. I was looking forward to discussing that for the next decade or more, but now whats the point. Whats the point. Bummer.

Was also looking forward to all the Boo Boo Boo's at the 2012 TdF if Alberto was let off the hook. Would have brought back sweet memories of HWMNBN'd sigh.

Life goes on.

 

[MarkvW]

. . .In both cases there has to be a ban, otherwise all anybody has to do is come up with enough untestable hypotheses that they get let off when they have been doping to the gills. You can only test for whether a substance is presnt, not how it got there or whether it was there intentionally. So if he falls on count b, ie unable to prove how it got there he has to be banned.

I think that it is debatable whether there "has to be" a strict liability ban. Strict liability has come to be because the riders are powerless and can't/won't demand individual rights in exchange for their bike riding services. If the riders ever got unionized you'd see a fairer process (and a dirtier peloton).

 

[The Hitch]

Despite claims from Polish that the forum revolves around Lance Armstrong, it seems even his clinic section sees Alberto as more important

http://boardreader.com/fp/CyclingNews_Forum_11718543/The_Clinic_11625285.html

A record 1080 posts on February 6th and 673 on Feb 7th compared to 635 and 273 on Feb 4th and 5th respectively.