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

[scribe]

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?

I wouldn't clutch at this too much. It's done dusted and not turning around.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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?

Well, your original point appeared to be on the unfairness of having to prove your case.

For DUI, depends where you are - it differs from state to state and country to country.
However, this goes back to something you alluded to earlier - that the clenbuterol found in AC was not enough to offer an advantage.
Nowhere has that been independently or conclusively said, because quite simply no-one knows what amounts are required for particular doping scenarios and how much would end up in a anti-doping sample.

In fact quite the opposite:

"You'll never find a ton of it, because the doses are really small," she said. "Most of the samples are below one nanogram [a billionth of a gram]." That's many times the 50 picograms [trillionths of a gram] reported to be present in Contador's sample, but Ayotte said her lab has frequently found levels that low.

"It's used in sports where they need to cut weight," she said. "Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not doping. ... This is just the dopers adjusting, or misadjusting, to the testing."

 

[Winternet_]

I wouldn't clutch at this too much. It's done dusted and not turning around.

Oh really. They seem fair to you? If that's the case, then we're done talking.

 

[scribe]

Oh really. They seem fair to you? If that's the case, then we're done talking.

It's a positive.

He'd got away with it if that pesky lab didn't leak the results after cycling failed to take action initially.

 

[Winternet_]

Well, your original point appeared to be on the unfairness of having to prove your case.

For DUI, depends where you are - it differs from state to state and country to country.
However, this goes back to something you alluded to earlier - that the clenbuterol found in AC was not enough to offer an advantage.
Nowhere has that been independently or conclusively said, because quite simply no-one knows what amounts are required for particular doping scenarios and how much would end up in a anti-doping sample.

In fact quite the opposite:

It is stated on the CAS findings that it was proven that the amount found on Contador's body wouldn't have altered his performance in any way.

 

[Winternet_]

It's a positive.

He'd got away with it if that pesky lab didn't leak the results after cycling failed to take action initially.

So you're saying that a positive = max punishment?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is stated on the CAS findings that it was proven that the amount found on Contador's body wouldn't have altered his performance in any way.

I read the CAS findings. Where exactly does it say this?

 

[scribe]

So you're saying that a positive = max punishment?

Of course.

 

[Winternet_]

I read the CAS findings. Where exactly does it say this?

Oh man. Don't make me look for that. It's not even a pdf file, so no search function ( I think they did that on purpose ). I'm pretty sure is stated in there.

 

[Old&slow]

So you're saying that a positive = max punishment?

I would not call it max punishment. he got off extremely lightly with what amounts to a 6 month suspension. He was able to avoid justice for the last 1.5 years. They should have started the sentence today. Giving him time credit is a travesty. He cheated, got caught and should be held accountable. Allowing him to get time credit while racing for the last year lets him and the corrupt Spaniards make a mockery of the system. Hopefully the ASO will be a little less forgiving and bar him from ASO races and the TDF in 2013 and 2014.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh man. Don't make me look for that. It's not even a pdf file, so no search function ( I think they did that on purpose ). I'm pretty sure is stated in there.

The only place I saw it mentioned was in relation to the RFEC decision from last year.
As we know that decision was overturned today - and nowhere in the CAS decision do I remember them suggesting what you claim.

 

[simo1733]

If Alberto's positive is the result of contaminated supplements as CAS have suggested, then nobody is safe from accidental doping.
This makes a 2 year ban seem harsh.Surely there should be a different punishment for deliberate doping compared to accidental ingestion.
I am happy to throw the book at him for deliberate doping but CAS are saying contminated supplements.

 

[Winternet_]

I would not call it max punishment. he got off extremely lightly with what amounts to a 6 month suspension. He was able to avoid justice for the last 1.5 years. They should have started the sentence today. Giving him time credit is a travesty. He cheated, got caught and should be held accountable. Allowing him to get time credit while racing for the last year is ridiculous. Hopefully the ASO will be a littles less forgiving and bar him from ASO races and the TDF for next few years.

Yes, because ASO loves to not make money

That's why all his actions in 2011 are nullified. In the paper, he did not race in 2011.

 

[scribe]

Hopefully the ASO will be a little less forgiving and bar him from ASO races and the TDF in 2013 and 2014.

I'd be shocked if that happens.

 

[Winternet_]

The only place I saw it mentioned was in relation to the RFEC decision from last year.
As we know that decision was overturned today - and nowhere in the CAS decision do I remember them suggesting what you claim.

I believe the phrasing was somewhat like this "the defense claimed that the amounts were too small to have an effect in the performance of the athlete. The appellants did not rebutted that claim".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I believe the phrasing was somewhat like this "the defense claimed that the amounts were too small to have an effect in the performance of the athlete. The appellants did not rebutted that claim".

Well you could do with finding it - however you could be a long time looking as this is the only reference that CAS made:

199 The strict libility princile of the above quoted article 21.1.1 UCI ADR is applicable to the present dispute. The contention that the prohibited substance did not have a performance enhancing effect on the Athlete and that he must have ingested the substance inadvertently does not preclude the application of the strict liability principle.

So nowhere has CAS stated that it "was proven that the amount found on Contador's body wouldn't have altered his performance in any way" - as you stated.

 

[Publicus]

I would not call it max punishment. he got off extremely lightly with what amounts to a 6 month suspension. He was able to avoid justice for the last 1.5 years. They should have started the sentence today. Giving him time credit is a travesty. He cheated, got caught and should be held accountable. Allowing him to get time credit while racing for the last year lets him and the corrupt Spaniards make a mockery of the system. Hopefully the ASO will be a little less forgiving and bar him from ASO races and the TDF in 2013 and 2014.

He got the maximum sentence imposed for a first offense. Two years. Add to that that his wins in 2012-2014 will add no WT points and thus artificially devalue his contributions to the team for most likely ingesting a contaminated supplement (according to CAS, he is more than likely NOT a cheater), and well, I would say that he received the max punishment.

 

[The Plediadian]

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.

It is cute listening to the Cantador apologists whine about their leader being banned and how Cantador will come out finger banging big time come August.
Many crocodile tears shed.
However, why are they crying? Cantador only really got an 8th month ban.
He will br all fueled up for the Vuelta, popin wheelies and schreaching rubber on the steep bits..........

 

[Publicus]

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.

Beyond a reasonable standard is not applicable in doping cases, either to the agency charging the athlete with doping or the standard of proof the athlete must establish to exonerate his or herself. I'm sure you came across that portion in the CAS opinion.

I found it interesting that you discontinued highlighting the relevant section where you did:

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.

I'm fairly comfortable with my reading comprehension skills on this one.

 

[Boeing]

Wow, Pro Cycling needs an enema.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Beyond a reasonable standard is not applicable in doping cases, either to the agency charging the athlete with doping or the standard of proof the athlete must establish to exonerate his or herself. I'm sure you came across that portion in the CAS opinion.

I found it interesting that you discontinued highlighting the relevant section where you did:



I'm fairly comfortable with my reading comprehension skills on this one.

Good - can you then show how what I said in the my earlier response to you is in some way incorrect - because your above response insinuates that I deliberately did not highlight something of relevance.


My earlier post:

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.

 

[Maxiton]

I think you are part right. You need the UCI on board to keep your career alive. Li FuYu plain vanished and the way Floyd Landis was so swiftly ejected, the UCI had to have a hand in keeping them and others away. Meanwhile other riders are welcomed back. It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma for sure...

"Look, you pay up, you get back. You don't wanna pay, fine, good luck in your new line of work." Maybe it's as simple as that.* Add in that UCI fancies itself guardian of cycling's marketing image. So, in addition to maybe blackballing players who aren't payers, perhaps they also blackball players they feel are toxic to the image (eg., Rasmussen, whom they've totally screwed, Landis, etc).

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.

Which begs the question of why Contador's people didn't simply source a supplement they knew to be contaminated and present that. (That would have been easier than trying to find a cow to inject Clen into. ) Serious question.

*I'm certainly not saying this is the case, merely suggesting that it could be, at least with some riders.

 

[Publicus]

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.

See paragraph 467 (states that he did not take a supplement on the relevant dates--usually take before or during races, not on race days).

In paragraphs 468-69 they note he provided a list of the supplements provided to the TdF team, which was corroborate by all of the other 8 riders.

In paragraph 470 he affirmed that he only took supplements checked by the team doctor and provided by and through the team--specifically noting he does that to ensure he isn't taking a supplement that is contaminated.

In paragraphs 471 and 472 he notes that all of the riders went under at least two controls and only one tested positive which is odd if they all used supplements from same contaminated supply there should have been more positives.

In paragraph 474, he notes that appellants have provided zero evidence to support their contention that the supplements were contaminated. Only pointing to the Hardy case and not establishing any link between the manufacturer in the Hardy case and the manufacturers of the Astana supplements.

In paragraph 475, he notes that he approached all of the manufacturers of the supplements (6 total) and each affirmed that: (1) none of the use or store CB or any other item on the Prohibited List, (2) none of them have ever been blamed for an athlete testing positive and (3) all carry out external, independent testing of their products, none of which have ever found CB.

In paragraph 476, the Panel notes that the appellants didn't contest ANY of those points. Instead, they allege (in paragraph 478) that he was concealing a supplement he took because he would not escape full sanction.

In paragraph 480, AC refutes this notion by noting that he would have to know which of the supplements contained CB and deliberately not provide that supplement even though a provide a list of all 27 supplements provide by the team to RFEC (and CAS).

At no point does WADA/UCI actually refute anything he presented. CAS concludes that:

(1) random testing and quality assurances of supplements may reduce the risk but it doesn't eliminate the risk of contamination; oddly enough it adds this as a support "In the same manner as the random controls performed on livestock farming in Spain and Europe cannot guarantee that contaminated meat will not reach the consumers, the above-described precautions cannot exclude that a contaminated batch of supplements reaches an athlete." [P. 482]

(2) that despite AC's testimony and his teammates that he only used the supplements provided by the team, the possibility that he used others cannot be ruled out [p. 483] [note there is no evidence to support this conclusion other than the fact that WADA raised it as possible without any support for the contention]

So Contador's team presented evidence/testimony that (A) he didn't take supplements on those days, (B) list of all supplements provide by team, (C) testified that he only took supplements provided by the team to avoid ingesting contaminated supplements, and (D) that manufacturers were taking reasonable precautions to ensure that there were no prohibited substances in any of the substances. As such I don't think it is accurate to say that he didn't present any evidence to establish that the contaminated supplement was not likely. All that is presented on the other side is conjecture (not even circumstantial evidence): (1) Hardy's supplement had CB, so it is possible that supplements may be contaminated and (2) despite testimony to the contrary, it is possible that AC took some unknown supplement that was contaminated. How CAS reaches this conclusion based on the evidence presented is beyond me (there is NO evidence that WADA impeached AC or any of the other teammates direct testimony on what supplements they used during the TdF). I think it is particularly galling that they impose the 2 year sanction without reduction because (1) "the exact contaminated supplement is unknown" and (2) the "circumstances of its ingestion are equally unknown". Simply unbelievable.

 

[BigChain]

Alberto isn't a doper! This is so not fair... It's all a stupid accident that now causes a two year ban. A two year is for dopers, not for the innocent.

Try working with Facts and not plain emotion. He was banned becasue he cheated. If the Spanish Federation had done their job properly and the Spanish President hadn't politicized things further, then it would not have dragged on for so long, but he would still have been banned.

But he cheated, he was caught and now he pays the penalty.

You piti him, but what about felling sorry for the guys who would have legitimately won the races he cheated in. The other guys may well be cheating too but they haven't been caught. Whereas Contador was caught with CB in his system and has paid the penalty.

 

[ultimobici]

Try working with Facts and not plain emotion. He was banned becasue he cheated. If the Spanish Federation had done their job properly and the Spanish President hadn't politicized things further, then it would not have dragged on for so long, but he would still have been banned.

But he cheated, he was caught and now he pays the penalty.

You piti him, but what about felling sorry for the guys who would have legitimately won the races he cheated in. The other guys may well be cheating too but they haven't been caught. Whereas Contador was caught with CB in his system and has paid the penalty.

Very good, I like it!