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

[craig1985]

I would love to know what Vincent Lavenu thinks of this privately, because now AG2R won't get the added publicity of Gadret finishing 3rd at the Giro, and would they get the added points that Gadret missed out on by finishing 4th?

 

[Winternet_]

Without Contador Scarponi wouldn't have cracked at the Etna. I still consider Contador the victor there and always will. But I don't want the Nibali fanboys to even think about him having won the Giro.

It's impossible and a waste of time to talk about what would happen if . .

Alberto won the Giro '11 fair and square, as he did in the Tour '10. But, he was convicted due to the presence of an illegal substance, so he is DQed in the events he participated. That's it.

 

[Spider1964]

This took too long to find.... nothing? They don't know? Deliberate ingestion? Supplement? Steak? Supplement they think?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cycling is a sport? No? What other sport takes this long to hold a tribunal hearing for a rule infraction? And I don't need a lecture on how other sports don't test/prosecute for doing drugs.

Shouldn't the timeline be something like this -

Drugs detected in an athletes system.
Sporting tribunal must be held within two weeks of the above date (Defence and Prosecutors have two weeks to defend / mount their cases.)
Verdict.
If appeal necessary, must be held within two weeks of the above hearing.
Final verdict.
End of story.

Forgive me if this has been mentioned in the previous 75 pages.

 

[doolols]

Shouldn't the timeline be something like this -

Drugs detected in an athletes system.
Sporting tribunal must be held within two weeks of the above date (Defence and Prosecutors have two weeks to defend / mount their cases.)
Verdict.
If appeal necessary, must be held within two weeks of the above hearing.
Final verdict.
End of story.

Not a lot to argue with there. And one international tribunal - none of this national organisation deciding on its own nationals' fate.

 

[zigmeister]

Where is Yannick Noah with an epic quote right now?

 

[Fetisoff]

Somewhere in Spain Eze Mosquiera must be crying his eyes out right now

 

[Publicus]

Wrong.
They only say that the CLEN positive may not have resulted from doping, not that AC did not dope. These guys have enough experience to know for sure that AC most likely did dope, even though the CLEN-positive itself may not be due to a transfusion.

Ow, the irony. Spends his life trying to fly under the radar using experimental drugs and microdosing his way up the Alpes, and then gets busted for taking a wrong food supplement.

Let me ask you this, if they had said that the CB was most likely introduced as the result of a transfusion how would you react if someone said CAS didn't say he doped since it only concluded it was most likely transfusion and not definitely a transfusion? I'm going to guess you would be laughing hysterically

 

[FGimondi]

The sad thing about this whole debacle that wether you think Cantador is guilty or not and that he's been rightfully suspended or not the fact that this case has been allowed to drag on for one and a half year is still a travesty. The fact that it's been alowed to may have done irrepreable damage not just to the sport of cycling but also to Cantadors legacy. As Silvio Martinelli said in response to Cantadors suspension his lawyers legal advise to him ultimately turned out be completely contrary to his interests. In hindsight he should have taken his one year slap on the wrist and been back to last year Vuelta. I'm a lot less sure the UCI would have apealed that decision.

So wether we think Cantador should be suspended or not, I think we all agree that the way this case have been handled and allowed to drag on is a complete travesty.

Now those who continue to insist that he was wrongfully jugded, that he did nothing wrong and that he has innocent of the crime he was charged with, wich it seems includes several proffesional rides and people in central positions in the world of cycling, need to understand that when Cantador entered the 2010 Tour de France he entered it on the then current WADA code. If he were in breach of this during the tour these were the rules he agreed to be jugded by. This offer strict liability when delivering an adverse analytical finding of a non threshold substance wich the athlete is unable to prove he digested through no fault or negligence of his own. The pending decision in an appeal would always be a 2 year suspension.

Now please drop the legally irrelevant arguments like the substance was minute, the labaratory that declared the positive was one of few that could have discovered the small amount of clenbuterol in Cantadors sample, that it could not have had an impact on his performance etc. These arguments will impact wether we percieve his suspension as fair or not but has no impact on how the case should be jugded legally under the WADA code Cantador agreed to race under when he entered the 2010 Tour de France.

 

[Publicus]

The sad thing about this whole debacle that wether you think Cantador is guilty or not and that he's been rightfully suspended or not the fact that this case has been allowed to drag on for one and a half year is still a travesty. The fact that it's been alowed to may have done irrepreable damage not just to the sport of cycling but also to Cantadors legacy. As Silvio Martinelli said in response to Cantadors suspension his lawyers legal advise to him ultimately turned out be completely contrary to his interests. In hindsight he should have taken his one year slap on the wrist and been back to last year Vuelta. I'm a lot less sure the UCI would have apealed that decision.

So wether we think Cantador should be suspended or not, I think we all agree that the way this case have been handled and allowed to drag on is a complete travesty.

Now those who continue to insist that he was wrongfully jugded, that he did nothing wrong and that he has innocent of the crime he was charged with, wich it seems includes several proffesional rides and people in central positions in the world of cycling, need to understand that when Cantador entered the 2010 Tour de France he entered it on the then current WADA code. If he were in breach of this during the tour these were the rules he agreed to be jugded by. This offer strict liability when delivering an adverse analytical finding of a non threshold substance wich the athlete is unable to prove he digested through no fault or negligence of his own. The pending decision in an appeal would always be a 2 year suspension.

Now please drop the legally irrelevant arguments like the substance was minute, the labaratory that declared the positive was one of few that could have discovered the small amount of clenbuterol in Cantadors sample, that it could not have had an impact on his performance etc. These arguments will impact wether we percieve his suspension as fair or not but has no impact on how the case should be jugded legally under the WADA code Cantador agreed to race under when he entered the 2010 Tour de France.

I think this is the rub. CAS essentially admits that it was more than likely the result of ingesting a contaminated supplement provided by his team doctor to himself and others on the team, which has been confirmed by the manufacturerers to have had its content certified by independent 3rd parties and not to have been produced in any facilities that use CB, to ensure that he did not inadvertently ingest a supplement that contained a banned substance. After all of that, he's still banned for 2 years as if he was found with EPO in his system. I'm not sure how much more he could have done to demonstrate no fault and lack of negligence on his own part. At a minimimum he should only be sanctioned for 1 year based on what is in the CAS opinion.

 

[Winternet_]

Alberto was correctly judged by the WADA code. But, the WADA code is what is wrong in this equation.

 

[scribe]

Alberto was correctly judged by the WADA code. But, the WADA code is what is wrong in this equation.

Couldn't disagree more. That substance is on the list of banned items for a reason. If Clen was so pervasive in accidental food ingestion, guys would be getting banged left and right for it.... especially the guys at his dinner table.

 

[BYOP88]

Couldn't disagree more. That substance is on the list of banned items for a reason. If Clen was so pervasive in accidental food ingestion, guys would be getting banged left and right for it.... especially the guys at his dinner table.

Yeah but they weren't tested were they.

 

[danjo007]

lucky them then

 

[scribe]

There you have it. He should have used that as his defense.

They could have proved his innocence, if stupid cycling had only tested his mates.

 

[Winternet_]

Couldn't disagree more. That substance is on the list of banned items for a reason. If Clen was so pervasive in accidental food ingestion, guys would be getting banged left and right for it.... especially the guys at his dinner table.

50 picograms of clen should not weight the same as EPO and blood transfusions and CERA.

Nor should unknowingly taking the substance weight the same as knowingly cheating.

Nor should unproven weight the same as proven.

See what i'm getting at here?

 

[The Hitch]

Alberto was correctly judged by the WADA code. But, the WADA code is what is wrong in this equation.

Yep, too few people these days question the rules. Theres some sort of belief that the rules are holy. Not just in this case but with for example also the 3k rule and the way it was used in the Mont Allesouts screwjob, and more importantly also in real life.

 

[scribe]

50 picograms of clen should not weight the same as EPO and blood transfusions and CERA.

Nor should unknowingly taking the substance weight the same as knowingly cheating.

Nor should unproven weight the same as proven.

See what i'm getting at here?

Yes. It's a circular argument that isn't going to change anything.

Look. These are big money stakes we are talking about in cycling. They should be sampling their food and freeze storing this stuff as evidence. If they weren't doing it then, they sure as hell should be doing it now.

I doubt they are though. As it is just smoke screen.

He had clen in his system to optimize his body weight in preparation for competition. He reintroduced trace amounts of that material when he did what all GC contenders do, is transfusing bits of their blood from preparation periods, for recovery and competitive advantage during stage races.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think this is the rub. CAS essentially admits that it was more than likely the result of ingesting a contaminated supplement provided by his team doctor to himself and others on the team, which has been confirmed by the manufacturerers to have had its content certified by independent 3rd parties and not to have been produced in any facilities that use CB, to ensure that he did not inadvertently ingest a supplement that contained a banned substance. After all of that, he's still banned for 2 years as if he was found with EPO in his system. I'm not sure how much more he could have done to demonstrate no fault and lack of negligence on his own part. At a minimimum he should only be sanctioned for 1 year based on what is in the CAS opinion.

To the first highlighted - no, not really. CAS said that supplement contamination was "more likely" than the other scenarios presented, but they then clarified that they were not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt". [from 487 of the decision - posted below]

To the Blue - if AC has argued that it was through supplements then he would have had the opportunity to show that he (& Astana) took precautions in what they used. Simply put, in comparison to all the other theories presented there was a lack of evidence to prove/disprove this theory.

487 Considering that the Athlete took supplements in considerable amounts, that it is incontestable that supplements may be contaminated, that athletes have frequently tested positive in the past because of contaminated food supplements with clenbuterol, and that the Panel considers it very unlikely that the piece of meat ingested by him was contaminated by clenbuterol, it finds that, in light of all the evidence on record, the Athletes positive test for clenbuterol is more likely to have been caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement than by a blood doping transfusion or the ingestion of contaminated meat. This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened. This is not required by the UCI ADR or by the WADC, which refer the panel only to the balance of probabilities as the applicable standard of the burden of proof. In weighing the evidence on the balance of probabilities and coming to a decision on such basis, the Panel has to take in to consideration and weigh all of the evidence admitted on record, irrespective of which party advanced which scenario(s) and what party adduced which parts of the evidence.

 

[Winternet_]

Yes. It's a circular argument that isn't going to change anything.

Look. These are big money stakes we are talking about in cycling. They should be sampling their food and freeze storing this stuff as evidence. If they weren't doing it then, they sure as hell should be doing it now.

I doubt they are though. As it is just smoke screen.

He had clen in his system to optimize his body weight in preparation for competition. He reintroduced trace amounts of that material when he did what all GC contenders do, is transfusing bits of their blood from preparation periods, for recovery and competitive advantage during stage races.

You need to prove that. Saying it just does not make it true. The theory presented about the blood transfusion was dismissed by the panel.

In the meantime, this "binary" system simply isn't fair and does not help the sport at all. Changes are needed. Badly.

 

[scribe]

You need to prove that. Saying it just does not make it true. The theory presented about the blood transfusion was dismissed by the panel.

In the meantime, this "binary" system simply isn't fair and does not help the sport at all. Changes are needed. Badly.

Pink elephants delivered the tainted beef to Contador's chef.

Do I have to prove that too?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Alberto was correctly judged by the WADA code. But, the WADA code is what is wrong in this equation.

Yep, too few people these days question the rules. Theres some sort of belief that the rules are holy. Not just in this case but with for example also the 3k rule and the way it was used in the Mont Allesouts screwjob, and more importantly also in real life.

Both of you suggest there is something wrong with the rules - yet do not elaborate.

When the only data for the anti-doping authorities is a positive test, how could they prove that doping took place?
Without strict liability every athlete would blame their positive on every unlikely scenario (food contamination, disappearing twin etc).

This is no different than if you are caught DUI - it is usually as a result of a urine/blood test, the Police do not have to show that you were knocking back vodka at the Yellow Rose at 10pm.

 

[mastersracer]

You need to prove that. Saying it just does not make it true. The theory presented about the blood transfusion was dismissed by the panel.

In the meantime, this "binary" system simply isn't fair and does not help the sport at all. Changes are needed. Badly.

it isn't binary - Jessica Hardy (swimmer) tested positive for clen, was able to source it to a contaminated supplement, and received a reduced sentence. Anti-doping agencies tell athletes not to take supplements because of cross-contamination, so there is an assumption of risk taking them in the first place. Contador's defense chose not to pursue this - they actually denied the tainted supplement scenario. The burden was on them to trace the positive to a specific supplement.

 

[richwagmn]

The sad thing about this whole debacle that wether you think Cantador is guilty or not and that he's been rightfully suspended or not the fact that this case has been allowed to drag on for one and a half year is still a travesty.

Cantador? Very clever.

 

[Winternet_]

Both of you suggest there is something wrong with the rules - yet do not elaborate.

When the only data for the anti-doping authorities is a positive test, how could they prove that doping took place?
Without strict liability every athlete would blame their positive on every unlikely scenario (food contamination, disappearing twin etc).

This is no different than if you are caught DUI - it is usually as a result of a urine/blood test, the Police do not have to show that you were knocking back vodka at the Yellow Rose at 10pm.

But they have several degrees of DUI don't they? Different results don't lead to the same punishment. Some results don't even grant a punishment. And yet, a ridiculous small amount in cycling leads to max punishment. Am I the only one to think this is not right? Does this makes sense, at all?

 

[Winternet_]

Pink elephants delivered the tainted beef to Contador's chef.

Do I have to prove that too?

If that's the theory you want to pursuit, then yes, you have to prove it.

People, I am not saying that because nothing was proved then Alberto should be absolved. Clen was found. No questions about it. It's illegal. But, if no foul play was proved, if it's not established that Alberto knowingly cheated, if it's proven that the athlete performance was not altered, how can the max punishment be the end result? This is the "binary" system I'm talking about.

Give him 3 months. Give him 6 months.

The guy that steals 100 bucks does not get the same punishment as the guy that steals a million.
The dealer that is arrested with a gram of coke does not get the same punishment as the guy that is arrested with a ton.