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

[TheEnoculator]

When I read that Contador said he'd do anything to prove his innocence, for a moment, it felt like I was reading Floyd Landis back in 2006. **shudders**

The difference between the two is, Contador has proven he could win clean, over and over, and the only time Landis ever won a GT (with a 8-minute comback too), he cheated. Besides, Landis is a sleaze bag. Contador is a class act.

 

[Walkman]

When I read that Contador said he'd do anything to prove his innocence, for a moment, it felt like I was reading Floyd Landis back in 2006. **shudders**

The difference between the two is, Contador has proven he could win clean, over and over, and the only time Landis ever won a GT (with a 8-minute comback too), he cheated. Besides, Landis is a sleaze bag. Contador is a class act.

You believe Lance also won 6 of his Tours clean?

 

[Marva32]

When I read that Contador said he'd do anything to prove his innocence, for a moment, it felt like I was reading Floyd Landis back in 2006. **shudders**

The difference between the two is, Contador has proven he could win clean, over and over, and the only time Landis ever won a GT (with a 8-minute comback too), he cheated. Besides, Landis is a sleaze bag. Contador is a class act.

When Contador said he'd do anything to prove his innocence, I flashed back to OJ Simpson searching for his wife's killer on the golf courses of America.

 

[bjbest]

If the UCI/WADA are right about how the clenbuterol got there, it was from a plasma donor. That could have been anybody -- friend, family member, teammate, stranger -- and testing hair wouldn't prove anything. Their theory is that it's not about the clenbuterol. That's just a symptom of the blood transfusion.

 

[DirtyWorks]

... but the meat and supplement theories would indicate a lot more Elite Athletes falling foul in the same way as Contador (which they havent). This is a point that no one (least of all the Spanish journalists at the press conference) have pressed Contador or Bjarne Riis on.

No. There's good research on how variable the results are from WADA certified labs. One lab's actual positive is another lab's false negative. We also know testing is biased to false negatives because a false positive would be a far worse situation. There are other speculations that can be made about false negative bias too. But, there's little fact to back it up.

We don't know the specifics of the clen test either. Some tests require real expertise to return confident results. This is a boring issue with few experts, but I think it's easy to agree how important it is.

 

[ElChingon]

I could post this in so many threads, well guess it will be here.

The French have some fun at the Spanish and Contador in general (in French with Spanish subtitles):

http://www.marca.com/2012/02/08/ciclismo/1328712732.html

Let the blood donations begin...

 

[Digger]

When I read that Contador said he'd do anything to prove his innocence, for a moment, it felt like I was reading Floyd Landis back in 2006. **shudders**

The difference between the two is, Contador has proven he could win clean, over and over, and the only time Landis ever won a GT (with a 8-minute comback too), he cheated. Besides, Landis is a sleaze bag. Contador is a class act.

So the only time he doped, he was caught?

 

[LaFlorecita]

I could post this in so many threads, well guess it will be here.

The French have some fun at the Spanish and Contador in general (in French with Spanish subtitles):

http://www.marca.com/2012/02/08/ciclismo/1328712732.html

Let the blood donations begin...

Is that humor??

 

[Scirea]

Lot of pathetic people have some short term fun with Contador's ban. Pretty sad.

 

[Cimber]

So the only time he doped, he was caught?

According to CAS it was highly unlikely that he doped.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

According to CAS it was highly unlikely that he doped.

CAS made no such claim.

They analysed the scenarios presented:
Meat contamination - unlikely.
Transfusion theory - unlikely.
Supplement contamination - possible.

 

[Aguirre]

so, since when a supplement contamination gets full ban? (2 years, stripped retroactively, etc)

a very interesting thing would be to analyse previous bans after supplement contamination.

The CAS is really digging into its ruin. This sentence would create a case in its own.

Contador will come back winning, but the credibility of CAS, AMA, and UCI is touched forever.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

so, since when a supplement contamination gets full ban? (2 years, stripped retroactively, etc)

a very interesting thing would be to analyse previous bans after supplement contamination.

The CAS is really digging into its ruin. This sentence would create a case in its own.

Contador will come back winning, but the credibility of CAS, AMA, and UCI is touched forever.

Contador did not get a 2 year ban because he took a supplement - he got his ban because the excuse he offered of meat contamination was rejected.

 

[Benotti69]

so, since when a supplement contamination gets full ban? (2 years, stripped retroactively, etc)

a very interesting thing would be to analyse previous bans after supplement contamination.

The CAS is really digging into its ruin. This sentence would create a case in its own.

Contador will come back winning, but the credibility of CAS, AMA, and UCI is touched forever.

since when did the UCI ever have credibility.

 

[Benotti69]

So the only time he doped, he was caught?

Isn't that always the way of it. They only dope once and were caught!

 

[Cimber]

Contador did not get a 2 year ban because he took a supplement - he got his ban because the excuse he offered of meat contamination was rejected.

Idd. But it is interesting that CAS did note that WADA doping theory was found just as unlikely as the beef explanation, and that supplement was the the most likely source. Not that it reduced the ban ofcourse, but it might very well influence his reputation positively.

 

[Cimber]

CAS made no such claim.

They analysed the scenarios presented:
Meat contamination - unlikely.
Transfusion theory - unlikely.
Supplement contamination - possible.

Well, one have to conclude that supplement is the most likely source then, since the other two are equally unlikely. As Anti-Doping chairman Evald states "its basically an aquitance despite the ban" (meaning the rules say they have to ban him but at the same time they rule doping unlikely as the source). In other words, the rules can really work in mysterious ways sometimes. Would have found this verdict to much easier to digest had they just found that doping was the most likely source. Now he gets a ban while they still say that they find doping unlikely

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, one have to conclude that supplement is the most likely source then,since the other two are equally unlikely. As Anti-Doping chairman Evald states "its basically an aquitance despite the ban" (meaning the rules say they have to ban him but at the same time they rule doping unlikely as the source). In other words, the rules can really work in mysterious ways sometimes. Would have found this verdict to much easier to digest had they just found that doping was the most likely source. Now he gets a ban while they still say that they find doping unlikely

Why would you have to conclude that? CAS only examined the theories presented. They said the supplement theory was 'possible'.
We know from other cases like Sean Kelly, Landis etc that the real reasons for a strange positive may not come out for years.

You offer the comments of a Danish Anti-doping chairman and I will offer you the comments of President of WADA John Fahey:

"Contador is a doping cheat, full stop."

 

[T_S_A_R]

Idd. But it is interesting that CAS did note that WADA doping theory was found just as unlikely as the beef explanation, and that supplement was the the most likely source. Not that it reduced the ban ofcourse, but it might very well influence his reputation positively.

if you read the judgement they find that the clen being a result of transfusion is as unlikely as meat (i disagree).

they do not compare the likelihood of transfusion - forgetting the clen - and clen riddled beef.

 

[bjbest]

WADA and the UCI were barred from presenting more of the transfusion evidence because the original charge was the clenbuterol, not a transfusion. AC's lawyers were able to prevent some of the expert testimony on transfusions from being presented, because it represented a "new" charge (which is why they almost walked from the proceedings). It all gets weirdly circular. Since they didn't charge him with it, they couldn't use all of their evidence, so it was less likely. The CAS also ruled the transfusion was unlikely partially because they thought AC would have been smart enough to not transfuse from someone using clenbuterol. This is also weird, since the German lab that did the testing is the first one that can pick up clenbuterol from a plasma transfer.

Well, one have to conclude that supplement is the most likely source then, since the other two are equally unlikely. As Anti-Doping chairman Evald states "its basically an aquitance despite the ban" (meaning the rules say they have to ban him but at the same time they rule doping unlikely as the source). In other words, the rules can really work in mysterious ways sometimes. Would have found this verdict to much easier to digest had they just found that doping was the most likely source. Now he gets a ban while they still say that they find doping unlikely

 

[BigChain]

Sigh...

This is the last time I'm going to explain this,

HE ISN'T BANNED BECAUSE HE CHEATED.

HE IS BANNED, BECAUSE HE COULDN'T PROVE CONTAMINATED MEAT WAS THE MOST LIKELY SOURCE.

ACCORDING TO CAS, THE CONTAMINATED MEAT THEORY AND THE BLOOD TRANSFUSION THEORY ARE BOTH HIGHLY UNLIKELY,

AND THEY THINK THAT THE MOST LIKELY CAUSE IS A CONTAMINATED FOOD SUPPLEMENT.

SO, BASICALLY, HE HASN'T PROVEN CONTAMINATED MEAT WAS THE MOST LIKELY THEORY, BECAUSE A CONTAMINATED SUPPLEMENT IS THE MOST LIKELY THEORY, ACCORING TO CAS.

SO, HE HASN'T DONE WHAT HE HAD TO DO TO BE CLEARED, SO HE'S BANNED.

ALSO, CAS ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGES IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY ALBERTO DID DOPE.

Understand it now? Any questions?

Sigh. He Cheated

 

[BigChain]

Maybe you should get your facts straight buddy, especially when using words like cheat, caught and penalty.
Hes NOT a cheat, he got CAS words saying he isn´t, live with it!

It's not as if he doesn't have prior form.

Lemond questioned his integrity in the 2007 Tour de France, implying that it was impossible for either Rasmussen or Contador to climb Stage 17 to
Plateau de Beille at speeds similar to Pantani unless they were doped. Red flag, Red flag, Red flag!

http://admirelemond.blogspot.com.au/2007_07_01_archive.html

 

[LaFlorecita]

It's not as if he doesn't have prior form.

Lemond questioned his integrity in the 2007 Tour de France, implying that it was impossible for either Rasmussen or Contador to climb Stage 17 to
Plateau de Beille at speeds similar to Pantani unless they were doped. Red flag, Red flag, Red flag!

http://admirelemond.blogspot.com.au/2007_07_01_archive.html

Dingdingdingdingding! Lemond!





Next post.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Sigh. He Cheated

Damn! My ignorelist is really getting overfull these days. Is there a limit, actually?

 

[SiAp1984]

Sigh. He Cheated

Right. You put it straight.

I wonder why so many people try to protect a guy who tested positive twice for a banned substance... Because he is such a nice guy? :-D I can't remember anybody defending Ricco or DiLuca in the same way. And I can't imagine that the only reason would be that AC has his funny little "I had contaminated steak" story. In Germany, we once had the case of Dieter Baumann (5k gold medal in Barcelona 1992). Years after his big win, he got busted for some banned stuff and blamed it on "contaminated tooth-paste". Of course he got banned. A stupid story might be (and remain) just that: PLAIN stupid.