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

[Marva32]

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).

It may be debatable whether there has to be 'strict liability' with the doping cases, but in the case of Contador and the Clenbuterol, it is strict liability. Since he was unable to show how the Clenbuterol got into his system through a non-negligent manner, then the ban is appropriate. Debate on the strict liability is probably worth its own thread.

 

[Biggut]

It's not debatable. If you don't have strict liability then you may as well not test at all. Everyone could take whatever they wanted and when they tested positive just say, it could have been in a supplement, food source, spiked toothpaste, the saliva of a woman I snogged in a club or any such untestable hypothesis and you would have to let them off because you couldn't prove HOW the substance got into their system.

So unless you want people to be allowed to take PEDs and then just make up any excuse and get off then you have to have strict liability.

And by the way it has nothing whatever to do with the stregth of bike unions. Strict liability isn't a cycling rule it is universal.

 

[Nilsson]

It's not debatable. If you don't have strict liability then you may as well not test at all. Everyone could take whatever they wanted and when they tested positive just say, it could have been in a supplement, food source, spiked toothpaste, the saliva of a woman I snogged in a club or any such untestable hypothesis and you would have to let them off because you couldn't prove HOW the substance got into their system.

So unless you want people to be allowed to take PEDs and then just make up any excuse and get off then you have to have strict liability.

And by the way it has nothing whatever to do with the stregth of bike unions. Strict liability isn't a cycling rule it is universal.

Nonsense. The large majority of all cases is very clear. It's in just in a few cases the cause isn't clear-cut or science and rules do not go hand in hand. In such situations strict liability can be too harsh. The Contador case, possibly, is such a case.

Regular use of clenbuterol during the Tour isn't even considered; the contaminated transfusion scenario is judged equally unlikely as the meat (at least, because of the 1 pg/ml in the blood sample, and 50 pg/ml in urine hours later, which contradicts intravenous administration and points to ingestion and digestion of some kind of contaminated food) and the contaminated supplement which is considered least unlikely..

The fact that Contador could maybe have tested positive on contaminated supplements that were legal and passed testing (considering the detection standard for stimulants like clenbuterol in supplements at 100ng/g and the ingested amount by Contador around 500 ng) you could at least argue if strict liability should be held up in the Contador case, instead of accepting 'no fault or negligence'...

 

[Biggut]

Nilsson, please tell me what clear cut evidence that somebody intentionally took drugs you think testing has shown. It can never show HOW the drugs got there or the INTENT of the person with them other system. That is why it is necessary. The vast majority of drug bans across sports have no additional evidence of guilt and can only show the presence of the drug.

 

[Nilsson]

Nilsson, please tell me what clear cut evidence that somebody intentionally took drugs you think testing has shown. It can never show HOW the drugs got there or the INTENT of the person with them other system. That is why it is necessary. The vast majority of drug bans across sports have no additional evidence of guilt and can only show the presence of the drug.

I never said you can know the intent, only that strict liability can be too harsh. However, most cases are clear (enough, if you'd prefer that) from a scientific point of view and it's nonsense to assume that 'strict liability' is necessary to fight doping. Someone who tests positive for EPO, etc. didn't do that by ingesting a contaminated supplement or contaminated food, nor got a needle in his arm by accident. The same for every other drug you can solely administer intravenously and for testing positive on a substance at an amount that can only be achieved trough doping. If you wish you could also introduce thresholds and time frames in which you let athletes get off, do more research or hand them a ban...

 

[Marva32]

It's not debatable. If you don't have strict liability then you may as well not test at all.

I agree that there needs to be strict liability, my point was that the issue of whether or not there should be strict liability is a different discussion, and irrelevant to the Contador case.

 

[Marva32]

If you wish you could also introduce thresholds and time frames in which you let athletes get off, do more research or hand them a ban...

Are you saying that doping cases should not be prosecuted?

 

[Cimber]

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

Erhm, I hope u realize that yhose paragraphs are just WADAs POv/theories. They are not the opinion of CAS. CAS on the other hand find that WADAs theory is unlikely

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.

No not at all. If CAS had rules that they found WADAs theory to be the most likely scenario I would have considered him a doper myself. My beef (pun intented) is that CAS finds WADAs (and ACs) theory to be unlikely, and find ffod supplement to be more likely.

I agree that there needs to be strict liability, my point was that the issue of whether or not there should be strict liability is a different discussion, and irrelevant to the Contador case.

I also agree we need strict liability, I just think it should be a tad more flexible to take care of those non-dopers who are bound to get caught in the net now and again.

 

[Nilsson]

Are you saying that doping cases should not be prosecuted?

Not exactly, because they aren't cases of doping (for that matter). Thresholds could be useful to achieve a fairer and more efficient anti doping fight, especcially with substances that are known contaminants and therefore could lead to false positives. I'm not saying you should install thresholds, only that it could be helpful. The only thing you have to keep in mind is micro dosing and the time frame you have to catch dopers. Those factors considered there are plenty of substances for which a threshold would be more fair...

 

[hrotha]

Erhm, I hope u realize that yhose paragraphs are just WADAs POv/theories. They are not the opinion of CAS. CAS on the other hand find that WADAs theory is unlikely

No, it's WADA's POV, plus Contador's rebuttal, plus an account of how the data was examined at the hearing. For the n-th time, CAS didn't find a transfusion unlikely by itself; they found a transfusion as the source of clenbuterol unlikely.

 

[Nilsson]

No, it's WADA's POV, plus Contador's rebuttal, plus an account of how the data was examined at the hearing. For the n-th time, CAS didn't find a transfusion unlikely by itself; they found a transfusion as the source of clenbuterol unlikely.

Exactly, because that was at stake. It doesn't mean that CAS found a transfusion as such likely though. In the contrary, even WADA and UCI do apparently do not think it's likely (enough) if you read their (and Ashenden's) comments. If they did, they would file a proper blood doping case. Something they have never done. The only reason they came up with the theory is because they had to, there were some smoking guns and they thought it was more likely than eating contaminated meat. Not because they thought they were able to prove blood doping (as such), because they can't..

 

[hrotha]

Exactly, because that was at stake. It doesn't mean that CAS found a transfusion as such likely though. In the contrary, even WADA and UCI do apparently do not think it's likely (enough) if you read their (and Ashenden's) comments. If they did, they would file a proper blood doping case. Something they have never done. The only reason they came up with the theory is because they had to, there were some smoking guns and they thought it was more likely than eating contaminated meat. Not because they thought they were able to prove blood doping (as such), because they can't..

They don't think it's conclusive enough to stand in a court, which is slightly different. Remember the leaked passport indexes? They said anything above 5 was very likely to be caused by doping, and yet, they didn't file a passport case even against the 10s.

 

[Nilsson]

They don't think it's conclusive enough to stand in a court, which is slightly different.

I never said it wasn't, but it is all that matters...

Remember the leaked passport indexes? They said anything above 5 was very likely to be caused by doping, and yet, they didn't file a passport case even against the 10s.

Not very likely per se, but increasingly likely indeed. It even makes it a bit unfair to assume all kinds of things about AC, but let even more suspicious riders off the hook...

More importantly, there is no conclusive case against AC, and (whatever we believe or think about him) that's what we have to deal with...

 

[Cimber]

They don't think it's conclusive enough to stand in a court, which is slightly different.

Its more than that. They find that its an unlikely theory. And if things cant stand the test of a court there is probably a reason for it. We should stick to what they actually conclude

More importantly, there is no conclusive case against AC, and (whatever we believe or think about him) that's what we have to deal with...

Yep, some ppl will find stuff which they think indicates that he is a doper. Fair enough, but there is no ground for using the CAS verdict as a proof that he doped, on the contrary.

 

[Von Mises]

In the contrary, even WADA and UCI do apparently do not think it's likely (enough) if you read their (and Ashenden's) comments. If they did, they would file a proper blood doping case.

Not exactly, we do not know what UCI/WADA thought, it is interpretation of CAS about their possible motives.
453.However, the Panel notes, in weighing the evidence before it, that neither UCI nor WADA were apparently confident enough to bring a doping charge against the Athlete based directly on their allegation of a blood transfusion.


Maybe it is true, that they were not confident. Or maybe, as they case started with clen, it is legally better to go with it. Or maybe a little bit of this and little bit of that.

 

[Cimber]

Not exactly, we do not know what UCI/WADA thought, it is interpretation of CAS about their possible motives.
453.However, the Panel notes, in weighing the evidence before it, that neither UCI nor WADA were apparently confident enough to bring a doping charge against the Athlete based directly on their allegation of a blood transfusion.


Maybe it is true, that they were not confident. Or maybe, as they case started with clen, it is legally better to go with it. Or maybe a little bit of this and little bit of that.

No, it's WADA's POV, plus Contador's rebuttal, plus an account of how the data was examined at the hearing. For the n-th time, CAS didn't find a transfusion unlikely by itself; they found a transfusion as the source of clenbuterol unlikely.

Ofcourse. That was the case they were asked to evaluate. Nothing more, nothing less. My problem with this whole thing is that some ppl use CAS's verdict as a proof that contador doped, which the is no justification for at all, since in this particilar clen case CAS finds doping unlikely to be the source. There is nothing in CAS's verdict that suggest that he did dope. Sure there are all the theories by WADA that u personally can choose to belive, but CAS rejected those theories as being unlikely (for the clen caseof course, since thats what they were looking at)

 

[Nilsson]

Not exactly, we do not know what UCI/WADA thought, it is interpretation of CAS about their possible motives.
453.However, the Panel notes, in weighing the evidence before it, that neither UCI nor WADA were apparently confident enough to bring a doping charge against the Athlete based directly on their allegation of a blood transfusion.


Maybe it is true, that they were not confident. Or maybe, as they case started with clen, it is legally better to go with it. Or maybe a little bit of this and little bit of that.

They were confident enough to bring the transfusion theory (as finding it more likely than eating contaminated meat) on a balance of probabilities. That's a whole lot different than starting a proper transfusion case, which they haven't done and for which there is no conclusive case against AC...

 

[Cimber]

No, it's WADA's POV, plus Contador's rebuttal, plus an account of how the data was examined at the hearing. For the n-th time, CAS didn't find a transfusion unlikely by itself; they found a transfusion as the source of clenbuterol unlikely.

Of course. That was the case they were asked to evaluate. Nothing more, nothing less. My problem with this whole thing is that some ppl use CAS's verdict as a proof that contador doped, which the is no justification for at all, since in this particilar clen case CAS finds doping unlikely to be the source. There is nothing in CAS's verdict that suggest that he did dope. Sure there are all the theories by WADA that u personally can choose to belive, but CAS rejected those theories as being unlikely (for the clen caseof course, since thats what they were looking at)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Its more than that. They find that its an unlikely theory. And if things cant stand the test of a court there is probably a reason for it. We should stick to what they actually conclude

Well this is what got you in to trouble in the first place - you originally said CAS ruled that supplement contamination was "probably" the reason for his positive, and that there is no benefit from the amount of clen found.
CAS said no such thing.

Yep, some ppl will find stuff which they think indicates that he is a doper. Fair enough, but there is no ground for using the CAS verdict as a proof that he doped, on the contrary.

As noted by others, it looks very likely that Contador transfused.

Did you read the Ullrich decision?
There is a claim that he used EPO, IGF-1, PCH, growth hormones.... yet he was 'only' found guilty of blood doping.
Do you want to argue that Ullrich is not a doper because he was only storing blood in case he fell in Spain.

 

[GJB123]

As noted by others, it looks very likely that Contador transfused.

Perhaps you should read up on some the contributions made by Nilsson and Merckx Index in some of the other threads on the likelihood of a transfusion having taken place at that time (not saying tha AC wasn't up any other illegal stuff). It is not that clear cut as you make it out to be, but don't let that stop you by all means.

Regards
GJ

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Perhaps you should read up on some the contributions made by Nilsson and Merckx Index in some of the other threads on the likelihood of a transfusion having taken place at that time (not saying tha AC wasn't up any other illegal stuff). It is not that clear cut as you make it out to be, but don't let that stop you by all means.

Regards
GJ

I didn't suggest it was "clear-cut" - just that it looks very likely.

I appreciate MIs posts - but I base my views on the CAS decision and its reference to the phthalates.

 

[sniper]

Perhaps you should read up on some the contributions made by Nilsson and Merckx Index in some of the other threads on the likelihood of a transfusion having taken place at that time (not saying tha AC wasn't up any other illegal stuff). It is not that clear cut as you make it out to be, but don't let that stop you by all means.

Regards
GJ

not that clear cut? are you joking?
don't let this bother you:

Dr Ashenden, member of the UCI’s Blood Passport
Expert Panel, after analysing Mr Contador’s parameters available from 2005 to 2010, found that the blood parameters of Mr Contador during the 2010 Tour de France were not normal, even though no blood manipulation can be positively proven. In addition, an extremely high concentration of phthalates (additives used to make plastic products such as bags used for storing blood and blood components) were found in Mr Contador’s urine sample of 20 July 2010, the day before the Sample was collected. The concentration of phthalates found in Mr Contador’s sample of 20 July 2010 is much higher than the maximum concentration found in studies conducted by the WADA-accredited laboratory of Barcelona. This concentration is also ten times higher and more than the maximum concentration found in the other samples of Mr Contador collected during the 2010 Tour de France. According to Dr Hans Geyer, Deputy Head of the Cologne Laboratory, such concentration is consistent with a concentration found after a blood transfusion.
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5648/5048/0/Award20FINAL202012.02.10.pdf

nothing to see here...

 

[sniper]

and please keep on moving folks, nothing to see here either:

WADA concludes that the coincidental presence of clenbuterol and of an extremely high concentration of phthalates in two different samples collected on two consecutive days, at a moment when the 2010 Tour de France had reached its momentum, is more likely to be the consequence of blood manipulation rather than of an extraordinary sequence of two
unrelated atypical and fortuitous events.

just WADA spinning conspiracies...

 

[sniper]

Ow, and look at these highly convincing counterarguments presented by team Contador:

According to Mr Contador, the Appellants’ plasma transfusion theory should be eliminated. The fact that he did not undergo any kind of transfusion is corroborated by the results of a polygraph examination. Moreover, the transfusion theory is scientifically impossible: a spike of phthalates can be attributed to any number of legitimate reasons and are not uncommon of the general population; the levels ofphthalates in his different samples were normal and no spike, meaning a possible transfusion, was seen. This theory is also impossible for pharmaceutical and toxicological reasons. Mr Contador’s blood parameters during the 2010 Tour de France are not atypical or suspicious.

yep, solid argumentation.
WADA's clearly spinning alright.

 

[WillemS]

I think the main problem with phthalate-based blood doping tests is that you have to have two things with such a test: sensitivity and selectivity.

While there is now a considerable amount of evidence that there are testing methods that are highly sensitive to phthalates, the selectivity is somewhat harder. So, if someone transfuses using bags with phthalates, we are pretty sure that we are going to detect it (high sensitivity). At the same time, if we have a positive test, we can't be sure whether the source was really a blood bag or some other source containing phthalates (unknown selectivity).

As I'm not aware of base rates or prior probabilities, any guess towards the probability of blood doping, given Contador's positive plasticizer test, is merely a wild one. For all I know, he could have gotten a positive plasticizer test by sucking to much on a rubber band (plasticizers are used during rubber fabrication) or breathing in too much of that new-car smell (caused by evaporating plasticizers).