- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 884
- 19,680
Having had more time to read the interview, I, like Python, find some of MA’s words confusing. First he says he found Contador’s Hb values in the 2010 TDF were what he expected. But then he says that they weren’t consistent with his results in other races. He notes that Hb levels generally drop over the course of a GT, and he implies that this did not happen in all of Contador’s races. But since he said earlier that the 2010 values were what he expected, I assume he meant that the values in some other years were suspect. But he doesn’t come right out and say that, or say which years or which races. I would assume he probably meant the 2009 TDF (remember how Bert beat the at-the-time untouchable Spartacus in the ITT—the same ITT he almost missed because Lance had the team transit take off without him?). That and the 2011 Giro were the only GTs where Bert really dominated the competition.
Also, the statement “There is a dilution of the haemoglobin as the cumulative impact of multiple days of stage racing leads to an influx of water into the circulation.” is not an accurate way to describe why Hb levels fall. The amount of water in the circulation rises and falls somewhat depending on how hydrated the rider is, but it doesn’t show a downward trend over time in a GT, or over any other period of time, for that matter. If it were just a dilution effect, there would be no impact on performance, as the rider would have the same number of red cells. Hb is diluted because some of the red cells are taken out of the circulation and are not replaced. This does result in an impact on performance.
I understand this. For example, someone might get off when the evidence for doping is significant in the scientific sense. There are different standards at play when major penalties are at stake.
But the rules that did not allow MA to testify don’t make sense to me. Based on what he says in that interview (and granted, we’re just hearing his side of the story), he was prevented from presenting evidence that would have greatly strengthened the case for transfusion. If the arbs, upon hearing that evidence, still felt the case for transfusion wasn’t very strong, so be it. But the evidence ought to be heard. Not allowing it to be heard has nothing to do with protecting anyone, at least not providing the kind of fair protections that a justice system should provide.
Several posters have noted that MA said in the interview “I did not say Contador transfused.” But the way I read that is literally. He means that he did not say this in so many words in the previous portion of the interview. But he pretty clearly believes not only that transfusion was the most likely of the three possibilities, but that if the original infraction had been for blood doping, the case would have been strong enough to convince Ashenden himself that Bert did in fact transfuse. As another poster notes, MA points out in the interview that not prosecuting for blood doping was a consequence of the legal situation, not the lack of evidence.
Why would they start a passport case when Bert has been sanctioned for two years already? And for the same reason, why should MA go on the record and say he is certain Bert transfused? If Bert had gotten off, I think MA would have been more forthcoming with his opinion, but why express an opinion you aren’t certain about if it isn’t going to make any difference?
I feel your pain, Hitch. But Bert knew when he entered the Giro that his case had yet to be resolved, and that he very well might not be allowed to keep his title. Also, the only alternative to losing that title would be a prospective ban of two years minus time served, which would mean he would not be able to ride until probably the Vuelta in 2013. While Bert was presumably not given a choice, I bet if you asked him he would rather lose the Giro than have to endure a long period of inactivity, plus miss the chance to win the 2013 Tour. He will probably come back in August as strong as ever. If he had to wait until August of next year, he might very well not be back to full strength.
As we discussed before, there are still other factors that make a retrospective ban more attractive. Suppose his case had been decided last December, as had been originally anticipated. This would not have affected a retrospective ban. He still would have been able to ride in the 2012 Vuelta, no sooner, no later. But it would affect a prospective ban. A two year ban, minus time served, would mean he could return to racing in time to enter the Tour in 2013, possibly even the Giro if the decision had been in early December or late November. The hearing in fact was re-scheduled several times. If the decision had been announced in August or September 2011, Bert could have ridden essentially the entire 2013 season. That is a much better deal than the same prospective ban following the Feb. 2012 decision that actually occurred.
IOW, the longer a case drags out during a period when the rider is not racing anyway, the potentially more races he misses while waiting for the decision. Since this process in large part is out of the rider’s control, it is not fair to him.
The bottom line is that this is a one-shot deal. The situation only arose because Bert was initially cleared by RFEC. Normally a positive test means an immediate suspension, so the problem doesn't arise.
Also, the statement “There is a dilution of the haemoglobin as the cumulative impact of multiple days of stage racing leads to an influx of water into the circulation.” is not an accurate way to describe why Hb levels fall. The amount of water in the circulation rises and falls somewhat depending on how hydrated the rider is, but it doesn’t show a downward trend over time in a GT, or over any other period of time, for that matter. If it were just a dilution effect, there would be no impact on performance, as the rider would have the same number of red cells. Hb is diluted because some of the red cells are taken out of the circulation and are not replaced. This does result in an impact on performance.
I understand this. For example, someone might get off when the evidence for doping is significant in the scientific sense. There are different standards at play when major penalties are at stake.
But the rules that did not allow MA to testify don’t make sense to me. Based on what he says in that interview (and granted, we’re just hearing his side of the story), he was prevented from presenting evidence that would have greatly strengthened the case for transfusion. If the arbs, upon hearing that evidence, still felt the case for transfusion wasn’t very strong, so be it. But the evidence ought to be heard. Not allowing it to be heard has nothing to do with protecting anyone, at least not providing the kind of fair protections that a justice system should provide.
Several posters have noted that MA said in the interview “I did not say Contador transfused.” But the way I read that is literally. He means that he did not say this in so many words in the previous portion of the interview. But he pretty clearly believes not only that transfusion was the most likely of the three possibilities, but that if the original infraction had been for blood doping, the case would have been strong enough to convince Ashenden himself that Bert did in fact transfuse. As another poster notes, MA points out in the interview that not prosecuting for blood doping was a consequence of the legal situation, not the lack of evidence.
Why would they start a passport case when Bert has been sanctioned for two years already? And for the same reason, why should MA go on the record and say he is certain Bert transfused? If Bert had gotten off, I think MA would have been more forthcoming with his opinion, but why express an opinion you aren’t certain about if it isn’t going to make any difference?
I feel your pain, Hitch. But Bert knew when he entered the Giro that his case had yet to be resolved, and that he very well might not be allowed to keep his title. Also, the only alternative to losing that title would be a prospective ban of two years minus time served, which would mean he would not be able to ride until probably the Vuelta in 2013. While Bert was presumably not given a choice, I bet if you asked him he would rather lose the Giro than have to endure a long period of inactivity, plus miss the chance to win the 2013 Tour. He will probably come back in August as strong as ever. If he had to wait until August of next year, he might very well not be back to full strength.
As we discussed before, there are still other factors that make a retrospective ban more attractive. Suppose his case had been decided last December, as had been originally anticipated. This would not have affected a retrospective ban. He still would have been able to ride in the 2012 Vuelta, no sooner, no later. But it would affect a prospective ban. A two year ban, minus time served, would mean he could return to racing in time to enter the Tour in 2013, possibly even the Giro if the decision had been in early December or late November. The hearing in fact was re-scheduled several times. If the decision had been announced in August or September 2011, Bert could have ridden essentially the entire 2013 season. That is a much better deal than the same prospective ban following the Feb. 2012 decision that actually occurred.
IOW, the longer a case drags out during a period when the rider is not racing anyway, the potentially more races he misses while waiting for the decision. Since this process in large part is out of the rider’s control, it is not fair to him.
The bottom line is that this is a one-shot deal. The situation only arose because Bert was initially cleared by RFEC. Normally a positive test means an immediate suspension, so the problem doesn't arise.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram