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

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
LA has reasons to be pleased: he climbs one spot in the overall ranking of the 2010 Tour... Ah, and his record 7 TDF wins are not in danger in the next one to two decades.
 

Fidolix

BANNED
Jan 16, 2012
997
0
0
Well, I choose to look at this verdict from the bright side.
According to the rules he´s guilty and should get the 2 year suspension.
However, it could have ended worse than this, yes he lose 2 GC´s, that sucks, but the ban is backdated and he can ride again for the Vuelta already this year.
If the ban had been effected from today and 2 years ahead, then I´m afraid Contador would have put the bicycle aside and stopped hes career, and that would have been so much worse for the sport and for the fans. (except from the Berti haters and dopestong lovers).

So all to all, CAS did what we expected, came to a verdict that probably will satisfy both camps, after all, it could have turned out worse.

Schleck and Scarponi gets their victory, nobody said life was fair!
 
ChrisE said:
You make no sense. If you support a two year ban from his AAF in 2010, how can you not take away in 2011 results?
I suppose taking away his 2011 results would be fine if he still got a proper 2-year ban afterwards. With this system in place, what happens if someone who didn't win anything of note but who is otherwise in the same situation as Contador is suspended? You can take away his one-year and a half of nonexistent results, I guess. It might be fair to take them away in that he shouldn't have been riding, but not at the expense of shortening his actual suspension. And since taking away those results on top of an actual 2-year ban would translate into a 3-year ban, I'd be all for him keeping those results if it hasn't been established that he doped to get them.
LaFlorecita said:
There shouldn't be a ban at all!
Now you're just being silly.
 
Jan 23, 2012
36
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
And I've arranged plane tickets to Tanzania for the 25th... :(

He is such a sweet and humble guy, a real gentleman. His world must be shattered at the moment. I feel truly sorry for him. :(
 
So CAS thinks both the transfusion theory and the contaminated meat theory are equally unlikely so they just ban him for two years? WTF?

And UCI will get at least 2.45 million euros from ALberto. This is all such a fvcking farce. He worked so hard for it and earned it rightfully.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
meat puppet said:
Actually this is strictly by the books and IMO there really should be no complains about that. Alberto transgressed the rules and thus is justly punished. Even if the persons and institutions enforcing the rules be bogus, that's what they play by.

It's the benefactors and implications - ie lance clan reigns supreme - that annoy me. Double whammy.

That's how I feel about it. I mean nothing against Lance, and I don't wish to go too far OT, but the guy admitted to working with Dr Ferrari.
 
Jun 30, 2010
137
0
8,830
The good news is Contador is retiring. At least he said he would retire if he was found guilty. We know what a man of his word he is and how honest he is. Oh wait never mind I guess he won't retire. To bad it would be a much more exciting sport without him.
 

Fidolix

BANNED
Jan 16, 2012
997
0
0
webvan said:
They should take away all his results and start the 2 year ban now since he never stopped racing.

I think I will put this comment as the dumbest yet on CN, I might even use it as a reminder for generations to come!:rolleyes:
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
hrotha said:
I suppose taking away his 2011 results would be fine if he still got a proper 2-year ban afterwards. With this system in place, what happens if someone who didn't win anything of note but who is otherwise in the same situation as Contador is suspended? You can take away his one-year and a half of nonexistent results, I guess. It might be fair to take them away in that he shouldn't have been riding, but not at the expense of shortening his actual suspension. And since taking away those results on top of an actual 2-year ban would translate into a 3-year ban, I'd be all for him keeping those results if it hasn't been established that he doped to get them.
.

I follow, but I think what they did is the correct way forward. He should not have been racing after the AAF for two years is the way I look at it, thus his results should be voided. Whether he is a better cyclist than somebody else that goes AAF does not play into my way of thinking.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Old&slow said:
The good news is Contador is retiring. At least he said he would retire if he was found guilty. We know what a man of his word he is and how honest he is. Oh wait never mind I guess he won't retire. To bad it would be a much mroe exciting sport without him.
Is that you flicker or POlish?
 
Jan 23, 2012
36
0
0
McLovin said:
@LaFlorecita, put yourself together, stop cryin' and stop writing bull$h!t.

Give it a rest will you please. she's going through the emotions atm. and i wont blame her. good to get it out at least...

Not much McLovin about you...:rolleyes:
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Snilla said:
He is such a sweet and humble guy, a real gentleman. His world must be shattered at the moment. I feel truly sorry for him. :(

Between you and this Florecita guy I need a barf bag.
 
Dutchsmurf said:
So both the meat and the transfusion were listed as unlikely, so instead they went for a contaminated food supplement? So basically they say "it was something you ate, but not the meat". How does that make any sense?

What if he had argued the contaminated supplement? Would he have been cleared?
 
Feb 4, 2012
20
0
0
There are some bizarre comments and double standards here.

Contador rode for Saiz, then he rode for Bruyneel alongside Armstrong, then he rode for an Astana minus Bruyneel but backed by Vinokourov ... uhm, how can anyone seriously imagine he didn't "dope"???? That doesn't mean he isn't fantastically talented but get real!!
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
They said it was most likely a contaminated food supplement.

However, the onus is on the defendant to prove how it entered his body and he was unable to prove that to their satsification, hence the ban.

Susan

This is crazy. If CAS thinks the evidence points to that, then why does the rider have to prove what they think?