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

[runninboy]

reading the decision it is kind of embarrassing what was offered as evidence of clenbuterol use in athletes. Body builder blogs? What is apparent is that the athletes are far ahead of the authorities in regards to doping.
Basically in regards to the blood transfusion AC's camp argued from the point that the clenbuterol found in AC would amount to an almost toxic amount in the donor and that the donor would have such high amounts it would be far too risky as it would trigger a positive test if the donor were to be tested while on the clen regime.
Wada/UCI countered with the theory that you build tolerance to the drug through a regime over a short period of time and that the blood could have come from a donor other than the rider himself.

the panel found the blood transufion theory possible but implausible owing to the fact that they cannot believe that there would be a donor involved in a high enough level of the sport to not have the same ambitions of AC and to not be afraid of random testing.

well he has an older brother Fran who is an ex cyclist and acts as his agent.
Fran would never be tested, his blood would be similiar and i am sure he probably continues to ride. He would make an excellent donor for some rest day blood.

 

[Publicus]

He/she certainly does. Talk about weight of circumstantial evidence. No one can claim that AC was always drug and dope free.

A few points that have occurred to me when wading through these posts:

* The only appeal allowable is on the process of the proceedings. The judgement can't be appealed. New evidence can't be introduced. [I think this is basically true, but I'm not familiar with all aspects of Swiss and EU jurisprudence to say there are no other basis for appeal]
* The contaminated supplements? CAS didn't say this is how the readings came about. They said it's more likely than either of the other two methods. As someone said earlier, this carries no weight. And the fact he had already said he took no supplements on the day in question rules it out. [Actually it carries a fair amount of weight. It's the sole basis of the decision. Also, they essentially disregarded his testimony that he didn't take any supplements and held that it was possible that not only did he take a supplement, but that it was a supplement he didn't receive from the team. How they arrive at the conclusion is not stated]
A rather good analogy was quoted earlier - if you are caught drunk-driving, the authorities don't have to prove where you were drinking, and how much you ingested of what you were drinking. It's not important. The rules state you mustn't have ANY traces of clenbuterol in your system. The tests showed he did, and he has never challenged the tests or the scientific process. So, the two year ban is right and proper, because those are the rules. And the timing of the ban is more than fair to him, IMO. [Fair point--though BAC has a threshold--perhaps an illicit drug would be a better example. A problem, at least so far as I can tell, is that their conclusions are not supported by any facts whatsoever. They conjure up the unknown contaminated supplement as more than likely the source and then state that his sentence is not entitled to reduction because the supplement hasn't been identified and they don't when he took it. Read that again.]

See my comments above in red.

 

[SiAp1984]

If this really was what CAS thought, then why on earth didn't they say "in our opinion, we think it is most likely that AC took PEDS"?

And why didn't WADA, you know, suggest that the most likely route was that AC took PEDS?

CAS didn't say it because they didn't have to to reach their verdict. This has been discussed here at length (no offense!).

WADA did so (at least in public, plastiziser) but they had the problem that the test is not authorised yet.

This is a courts verdict. It isn't a piece entitled "We answer every single question concerning the case at hand, and only if every single answer to any possible alternative of that case is against AC, we will sentence him".

As courts use to do, they just answered one question as they only had to answer one question: Did AC prove that he took the clen unintentionally? He failed in doing so. They absolutely did not have to clarify HOW the clen actually got there. But I am quite sure (of course I do not know) that the judges are of the private opinion that AC gotclen by contaminated blood. But such opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the verdict itself. For the verdict, it is absolutely irrelevant how the clen actually got into ACs body as long as he can't prove that he took it unintentionally.

 

[The Plediadian]

It hasn't. And it makes me want to puke. What a ****ing *******.

I am pretty sure Alberto was set up by secret enemies.

 

[Publicus]

I think this is CAS code for "AC took PEDs" I think it is a rational path to conclude that. (How did it get in his blood [if not for meat or recorded supplements]? - PEDs - AC: I didn't take drugs - CAS: of course he would say that, but we can prove he did something to get drugs in his system)



Its complicated because the CAS listened to the smoke and lasers argument, but then the CAS invented a story, and decided it was because Contador didn't prove of a second shooter on the grassy knoll, that the ruling should stand.

It isn't a rational path. It is what you think, but that does not make it rational (I don't mean that as a slight).

 

[More Strides than Rides]

But what does the bolded bit mean? That he has to prove that he'd ingested a supplement without any knowledge of the thing he was ingesting, or that he'd ingested something he thought was legitimate, without knowledge that it was actually contaminated with a prohibited substance?

If it was the former, then you're arguing that the only way someone isn't at fault from taking a contaminated supplement is if they take the supplement itself without knowing about it (perhaps a podium girl had been taking some contaminated energy gel just before a presentation, and there was some residue on her lips when she kissed him?)

If it's the latter (which appeals more to my understanding of natural justice) then how would you prove that other than common sense? Can anyone conceive of a situation in which a rider gets a supplement, somehow (I've no idea of how, but let's just go with it) establishes it is contaminated with a prohibited substance, and then takes it anyway??? But, if I understand the convoluted logic of the judgement, this seems to be what we're meant to believe in order to see that Contador was doping.

The more I think about the judgement, the more the whole things looks like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

The whole point of the hearing was for an opportunity for AC to prove how drugs got in his system. If he fails to do that, he would be suspended under the strict liability for having shown drugs in his system. Your two options are very similar in my eyes. He would have to prove that the way those drugs got in his system was legitimate (that it was an accident, either by contamination, ignorance, or both).

Again, a failure to prove accidental ingestion would violate the strict liability standard, under which he failed his drug test.

[1] Your supposition is not supported by the CAS opinion.
[2] If he had advance the theory that it was contaminated supplement, then you are in fact correct, the balance of the evidence CONTADOR presented demonstrated that none of the supplements he took were contaminated. His team SPECIFICALLY ruled out contaminated supplement because (A) according to his testimony, he did not take any supplements on the rest day and (B) he only took the supplements provided by the team to avoid contamination (see the other evidence).

[3] I'm not sure what you are trying to say here "didn't not prove is uninnocence". To my mind that translates into "did prove is uninnocence" (eliminated the double negative). On the issue of the supplement, as noted above, AC's team THOROUGHLY demonstrated why it was not the likely source. CAS was only able to make its ruling by (A) deciding that despite AC and his teammates testimony to the contrary, it was possible that AC took another supplement not provided by the team, (B) implicitly argues that AC has chosen NOT to reveal what the nature of the supplement, (C) supplements have been shown to be contaminated in the past and therefore (D) it is more than likely that that this unknown supplement was the source of the CB contamination. IMO, CAS position is not supported by any meaningful evidence.

1: You're right. I am filling the gaps in what I read literally, with inferences to what they mean in real terms. I may be doing this liberally, but I think it helps to separate what they mean from what they write. It is not up to the CAS to detail how CB got in his samples. Therefore, they can leave it to an ambiguous source
2: We agree.
3: I used that phrase to try and say we agree on what happened in the courtroom, but had different means of articulating it . It was a rhetorical point if anything.

What we seem to disagree on is your bolded piece only, but only in how we interpret it. I think you believe (just to be sure) that the CAS did not substantially prove A,B,C, and D. I agree.

The rhetorical point I tried to make comes in here. Where you see the decision as a failure, based on an incorrect conclusion by the CAS drawn from ABC and D, I see the decision as accurate, because no one could prove (or decided to legitimize and prove) ABC and D. This means, that any excuse for having CB in his system is not valid, In which case Contador faces normal procedures for failing a doping test (two tears).

I think there's a fairly fundamental problem with this opinion though.

If this really was what CAS thought, then why on earth didn't they say "in our opinion, we think it is most likely that AC took PEDS"?

And why didn't WADA, you know, suggest that the most likely route was that AC took PEDS?

What possible reason, in a court, in a case about prohibited substances that were detected by a test, would a judge use code words to talk about their opinion?

Like my reply to Publicus, I have no basis for that point besides inference. However, I think the reason they did not outright say that is because they could no prove he did; This is a court hearing, where thing need some evidence.

They did not try to, and the WADA did not take that route because they did not need to: he failed the drug test(s)

 

[Fidolix]

Pretty sad that people think that Contador is not a doper.

He rode for Sainz

He rode for Bruyneel

He rode for Martinelli

He rode for Riis.

Now how did he manage to win races and GTs with these DSs and not dope?

Preparation and training? Just a wild guess!

 

[Benotti69]

Preparation and training? Just a wild guess!

Sainz, Bruyneel, Martinelli and Riis all current masters in 'preparation' and 'training'

 

[LaFlorecita]

Preparation and training? Just a wild guess!

I think that's quite a good guess!

 

[RownhamHill]

CAS didn't say it because they didn't have to to reach their verdict. This has been discussed here at length (no offense!).

WADA did so (at least in public, plastiziser) but they had the problem that the test is not authorised yet.

This is a courts verdict. It isn't a piece entitled "We answer every single question concerning the case at hand, and only if every single answer to any possible alternative of that case is against AC, we will sentence him".

As courts use to do, they just answered one question as they only had to answer one question: Did AC prove that he took the clen unintentionally? He failed in doing so. They absolutely did not have to clarify HOW the clen actually got there. But I am quite sure (of course I do not know) that the judges are of the private opinion that AC gotclen by contaminated blood. But such opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the verdict itself. For the verdict, it is absolutely irrelevant how the clen actually got into ACs body as long as he can't prove that he took it unintentionally.

So, between the two of you, you are now suggesting that an independent judging panel on an quasi-judicial arbitration board, who has heard all the evidence, and then has been asked to form a judgement, would privately come to one conclusion based on the evidence - but then explicitly reject that private opinion in their public judgement as being completely implausible - and then, not satisfied at their first piece of lunacy, then go on in their judgement to use 'code words' (such as 'contaminated supplements') whose real meaning happens to be directly relevant to the case in hand, so much so that one of the parties has submitted detailed evidence about them, but when the judges use them (to essentially form the crux of their judgement) what they actually mean is something completely different.

Really, is that what you think?

I can't help but scratch my head and wonder, why would the judges not just say what they mean?

Anyway to your first point - no worries I haven't taken offense by anything you've said in your post.

 

[Publicus]

So, the clen first came from contaminated meat, from the Basqueland. Then when no meat was found to be contaminated within the borders of Spain a new story arrises> meat came from South America, or Mexico, where clen is known to be used in cattle raising.
Now Albertos' clen has come from supplements provided by his trainers.
When the story changes once, it loses credibility.
The second time it changes, something stinks, a payoff, or a lie if that explanation by Albertos' lawyers was accepted by any court.

So here's the interesting thing, apparently there was a positive for CB in the Basque Country in 2009. It was unreported and is not included in any of the statistics, but apparently it occurred. {see paragraph 310}. As for the contaminated supplement theory, that was advanced by WADA not Contador.

 

[Carols]

anyone have the press conf link?

 

[LaFlorecita]

anyone have the press conf link?

http://www.cyclingfans.com/alberto-contador-press-conference-live

Also look at the incredibly pretty picture. Those eyes...

 

[RownhamHill]

Like my reply to Publicus, I have no basis for that point besides inference. However, I think the reason they did not outright say that is because they could no prove he did; This is a court hearing, where thing need some evidence.

They did not try to, and the WADA did not take that route because they did not need to: he failed the drug test(s)

But the problem I have with that position is that it makes absolutely no sense at all.

They're the judges, they don't have to prove anything, they just have to make judgements based on the evidence they see. And indeed look at what they did say - that in their opinion the CB came from a contaminated food supplement. There is absolutely no evidence of this either!!!!

And then you say WADA didn't need to show that he'd taken the CB as a PED - sorry, but it almost goes without saying that if they could have shown that Contador had been taking CB as a PED then they would have!

And in any case WADA did need to show some alternative route for the CB than tainted meat, which is why they went down the path of trying to show the transfusion scenario - if there had been some plausible evidence that Contador had in fact popped a pill you don't think they would have raised this in its appeal???

 

[Carols]

http://www.cyclingfans.com/alberto-contador-press-conference-live

Also look at the incredibly pretty picture. Those eyes...

Thanks!

My goodness you are in love

 

[DirtyWorks]

So, between the two of you, you are now suggesting that an independent judging panel on an quasi-judicial arbitration board, who has heard all the evidence, and then has been asked to form a judgement, would privately come to one conclusion based on the evidence - but then explicitly reject that private opinion in their public judgement as being completely implausible - and then, not satisfied at their first piece of lunacy, then go on in their judgement to use 'code words' (such as 'contaminated supplements') whose real meaning happens to be directly relevant to the case in hand, so much so that one of the parties has submitted detailed evidence about them, but when the judges use them (to essentially form the crux of their judgement) what they actually mean is something completely different.

Really, is that what you think?

I can't help but scratch my head and wonder, why would the judges not just say what they mean?

Yes to all of that. There is a language standard for matters going through a court-style proceeding. Lots of code words involved in most human inventions.

Judges are there to process cases based on imposed criteria. A court is not the venue for the judges to say what they are thinking.

 

[Publicus]

[Snip]

What we seem to disagree on is your bolded piece only, but only in how we interpret it. I think you believe (just to be sure) that the CAS did not substantially prove A,B,C, and D. I agree.

The rhetorical point I tried to make comes in here. Where you see the decision as a failure, based on an incorrect conclusion by the CAS drawn from ABC and D, I see the decision as accurate, because no one could prove (or decided to legitimize and prove) ABC and D. This means, that any excuse for having CB in his system is not valid, In which case Contador faces normal procedures for failing a doping test (two tears).

[Snip]

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that WADA presented ZERO evidence to support its contaminated supplement theory, that Contador and his team provided a fair amount (and compared to WADA an AMPLE amount of evidence) supporting their contention that a contaminated supplement was not the source of the CB--think about it, if it was the source, why wouldn't he pursue this angle? it would at a minimum reduce his sentence to 1 year vs 2. From these two data points (I'm grouping them for simplicity sake), CAS derives its ruling. I don't know how you do that when WADA provide nothing beyond the Hardy case, which wasn't applicable, and conjecture (it's possible that he ingested a contaminated supplement that he didn't list). At bottom, this all turns on it a single supposition: it is possible that AC took a supplement that he did not provide. Is it more possible than him transfusing or eating contaminated meat? According to CAS it is, but there's no way to test that theory/possibility and all of the evidence presented at the trial directly contradicted it.

I think CAS made an error here in their analysis. I'd be less troubled, however, if they didn't compound that error by saying that Contador didn't demonstrate no fault/ no negligence because he didn't produce the supplement he says he didn't take on the relevant date and failed to demonstrate it was contaminated.

Does that make more sense now?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

But the problem I have with that position is that it makes absolutely no sense at all.

They're the judges, they don't have to prove anything, they just have to make judgements based on the evidence they see. And indeed look at what they did say - that in their opinion the CB came from a contaminated food supplement. There is absolutely no evidence of this either!!!!

And then you say WADA didn't need to show that he'd taken the CB as a PED - sorry, but it almost goes without saying that if they could have shown that Contador had been taking CB as a PED then they would have!

And in any case WADA did need to show some alternative route for the CB than tainted meat, which is why they went down the path of trying to show the transfusion scenario - if there had been some plausible evidence that Contador had in fact popped a pill you don't think they would have raised this in its appeal???

We are in agreement on almost everything. But, in regards to the bold, they believe that the contaminated food supplement is only more likely than the others. But from all of the evidence presented, there was not enough to make that alternative story strong enough to explain the failed drug test. The failure is then cannot be disputed, and leads to a ban.


EDIT

...
Does that make more sense now?

Yes, that does actually. Thank you. Personally, I see the error which you pointed out as insignificant in the grand scheme of the suspension. That may not be the right opinion to have, but I see the end game as just the same. but I do see now why we've been going back and forth.

 

[Fidolix]

Screw the verdict, it wasn't needed!

That video never gets old

Yes you right, let´s hang the b@st@rd from the nearest tree...along with mr. Dopestrong and half the peloton, team owners and race directors, that freaking make sense, why even bother to have a justice system, let´s fire the whole circus, UCI, WADA, CAS and all the national federations, let´s kill the sport, let´s go let´s go!!!

Or wouldn´t it just be more vice to accept the verdict as it´s written, and accept the fact he wasn´t found guilty for knowingly have taken dope, I´m sorry it´s against your wishes, but try keep your feet on the ground accept the facts, he got a verdict based on the strict liability rule, face the music.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So here's the interesting thing, apparently there was a positive for CB in the Basque Country in 2009. It was unreported and is not included in any of the statistics, but apparently it occurred. {see paragraph 310}. As for the contaminated supplement theory, that was advanced by WADA not Contador.

So far, there's the second clen positive AAF - 1 day that everyone pretty much forgot about. I know I did. But Science of Sport mentioned, so it must have appeared somewhere at some time.

And now a third AAF in 2009 at the Tour of the Basque Country.

Thanks for reading the whole thing.

 

[SiAp1984]

So, between the two of you, you are now suggesting that an independent judging panel on an quasi-judicial arbitration board, who has heard all the evidence, and then has been asked to form a judgement, would privately come to one conclusion based on the evidence - but then explicitly reject that private opinion in their public judgement as being completely implausible - and then, not satisfied at their first piece of lunacy, then go on in their judgement to use 'code words' (such as 'contaminated supplements') whose real meaning happens to be directly relevant to the case in hand, so much so that one of the parties has submitted detailed evidence about them, but when the judges use them (to essentially form the crux of their judgement) what they actually mean is something completely different.

Really, is that what you think?

I can't help but scratch my head and wonder, why would the judges not just say what they mean?

Anyway to your first point - no worries I haven't taken offense by anything you've said in your post.

Quite exactly. They (the court) were not called upon to decide how the clen into ACs body. They only and exclusively had to weight his evidence for his claimed unintended use of the substance. As soon as they are sure that he failed in proving this unintended use, they could stop and just write down why they are not convinced by the pieces of evidence presented by AC. However, it is not unusual that judges include (in the strict sense) unnecessary elements in their verdict (eg the food supplement-line) just to show how carefully they made up their arguements. However, they are not obliged to do so.

I do not say that this way of working is fully satisfactory from a fans point of view... And I have to stress again that I only speculate that they were sure that AC doped.

 

[Publicus]

[snip]

EDIT


Yes, that does actually. Thank you. Personally, I see the error which you pointed out as insignificant in the grand scheme of the suspension. That may not be the right opinion to have, but I see the end game as just the same. but I do see now why we've been going back and forth.

Given that it is the sole basis of the suspension, I'd disagree on the significance of the error. But, as the kids are fond of saying, let's agree to disagree

 

[Fidolix]

I think there's a fairly fundamental problem with this opinion though.

If this really was what CAS thought, then why on earth didn't they say "in our opinion, we think it is most likely that AC took PEDS"?

And why didn't WADA, you know, suggest that the most likely route was that AC took PEDS?

What possible reason, in a court, in a case about prohibited substances that were detected by a test, would a judge use code words to talk about their opinion?

He wouldn´t, pure and simple.

 

[LaFlorecita]

This is so sad...

Also, a source says he will accept the ban.

 

[SiAp1984]

a source says he will accept the ban.[/URL]

First smart move by him in this story.