Can Contador just shut up and go away?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 3, 2010
603
0
0
Berzin said:
The same program that Andy Schleck was on. So you take the Tour title from one doper and give it to another. Yeah, that's how the war on drugs will be won.
Ok, I lost you. Now you are accusing schleck of being a doper in some kind of double conspiracy with contador in the same program? Sure, whatever makes you feel better.

Berzin said:
No he does not. Preferential treatment is the name of the game in all walks of life, as it is at the UCI. Have you not been following along here? Just because you and many others believe that things SHOULD be one way, they are in reality another way.

Did you see how Pat McQuaid tried to keep Contador's test result quiet until the matter was exposed by a German journalist?

Welcome to pro cycling, rotten to the core.
Oh I have been following along, but that doesn't mean it is right. By the way the quick solution the UCI promised has seemed to evaporate, hasn't it?

You yourself have posted many a post preaching morality and ethics. So, how can you honestly make an exception for one doper but not another?

Berzin said:
Unlike you I can see the shades of gray that life is lived in. If you can't tell the difference between Armstrong and Contador, it is beyond me why you're even commenting on what I wrote.
Ahh we get to the heart of matters. Exceptions are ok for contador, but not armstrong. Sure that sounds fair.

Berzin said:
As for hypocrisy, you've got to be kidding me. The whole stinking process at the UCI is a showcase for hypocrisy. And you suddenly expect the rotten crew that control cycling to suddenly sprout angels' wings and do what's right? My good man you are off by more than just one of you believe this.
I don't expect anything. But that doesn't mean I can't hope. If you allow exceptions to the rules or the process then the system will fail. You are rationalizing letting contador off the hook because the system has failed in the past.

Berzin said:
Hey Nostradamus, the Spanish Federation aren't going to give their national cycling hero a two-year ban for a sand grain of clenbutarol. And the UCI won't do a thing about it either.
They tried to give a pass to valverde as well, but he ended up more or less paying his time.

Berzin said:
I don't make these crooked rules, but I understand how things work. Don't blame me for that, I have nothing to do with how the UCI navigates it's pirate ship.
That is not the kind of attitude that will help the fight against doping and you yourself are a preacher of that fight, but clearly you are having a hard time swallowing your own medicine.

Quit rationalizing giving contador a pass because you are a fan boy.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
flicker said:
...

I like Contador to express himself. It is funny watching him stumble.
not half as funny as watching a big mouthed bully trying to convince the world he never tested positive :D
 
It's quite funny the hypocrit ambient about all this. When someone say: "if he is found guilty..." when the same thinks he is guilty beforehand...

If federation finds doping evidence, then people happy, if federation finds innocent of doping then people unhappy...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Aguirre said:
It's quite funny the hypocrit ambient about all this. When someone say: "if he is found guilty..." when the same thinks he is guilty beforehand...

If federation finds doping evidence, then people happy, if federation finds innocent of doping then people unhappy...
Doping evidence has already been found. only question is whether he'll officially be found guilty.
Nobody just "thinks" he's guilty.
There is just a number of sane people who go by the facts at hand and make a plausible inference from these facts.
There are others who "think" AC's unguilty, though any arguments are not presented and available facts to the contrary are ignored or dismissed as rumors.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Wow, there's some bullying going on here. Let's try some facts and logic.

#1. This case is only about Clenbuterol. People who aren't allowed to leak information from labs allegedly did so from Cologne, a lab that only saw ten samples from the Tour de France. Those same sources claimed unofficially that a plasticizer test was applied. The Spanish lab that designed the as yet unapproved test wasn't contacted to see that the protocol was properly done. I saw one article that said the Spanish test wasn't even the one used, it was another unapproved one. But it doesn't matter. If you've ever refilled a bottled water bottle, you've probably got plasticizers in your system. That's the reason they say on the label that you're not supposed to do it. And the bike bottles used by Astana and a few other teams advertise that they have a special substance added to help the plastic break down quickly so as to be biodegradable. Things like that need to be examined before the test will ever be approved. The head of the lab that came up with the test admitted that they need to do more research on how plasticizers get into people in everyday life.

But the main reason plasticizers don't need to be part of this discussion is that Contador gave public permission for the labs to store his samples for years and to retest once a test is approved. That's a big deal, because according to the IO Report, everyone else's samples from the Tour were only to be stored for three months. So if a test was approved tomorrow, Contador is the only one who could be retested. So if he's found innocent for Clenbuterol via contamination, he's not off the hook for possible blood transfusion, even though every other rider from the Tour is. It's just delayed. You have zero scientific data on his level of plasticizers or any other riders, so give it up already, knowing that if a test is approved, and he did cheat, he'll be the one from the 2008 Tour that's busted. The case is about a tiny amount of Clenbuterol, and ultimately, whether a couple of humans at WADA screwed up by not setting a minimum threshold for a positive. And Alberto's legal team includes a guy who not only worked for the UCI on past occasions, but also beat them on the Pellizotti bio passport case. If you recall, the UCI said for ages that they weren't going after their first cyclist with the passport until they had all their bases covered legally to make sure they won in court. Pellizotti's lawyer beat them.

By the way, the same UCI that violated Ethics by talking putting pressure on the Competition Committee this week, stating in one breath that the Contador decision is simple (even though it took them two months for two organizations and 600 pages), and also that the Committee probably wasn't up to dealing with it because it's so scientific. They're the same ones that told Contador it was contamination, and recommended the only expert he had working on his defense the first month.

If you really care about the battle against doping in sports, ask why the AFLD still has stored samples from the 2000 & 2001 Tours de France, but the UCI didn't want this year's samples stored, even though this awesome plasticizer test so many of you love is in the works. Ask why the Lausanne WADA Lab could return all TdF test results within 72 hours, but it took the Cologne Lab with their sophisticated equipment more than a month to deal with their ten TdF samples.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
And on the original topic, if he makes you that angry, it's easy to not click on articles with quotes from him. There aren't many. I've had to do it with Cav, Schlecklet, Wiggins and O'Grady. I don't expect them to stop talking, or other people not to be interested in what they have to say. I just don't click.

Contador won a lot of races for Astana. He spent a lot of time with various members at races, camps and training. He helped them to the top ranking earlier in the year. Now he hasn't been paid since September, but that isn't his complaint, even though it's big money. Somehow a sketchy site called Humo claimed to have gotten an exclusive interview with a person affiliated with Astana with close personal knowledge of Contador's behavior. Other press treated it like the Wall Street Journal had come up with a smoking gun that tied everything together. There was supposed to be more detail in the magazines, but there wasn't a single new article about it on Google News in any language after it hit newsstands. I imagine it's because any journo who looked at the magazine would have realized what nonsense it was that they'd be a reliable source to break a pro cycling story, or that someone from Astana would have decided they were the place to tell the story. Seriously, check out humo.be

All Alberto wanted in the way of support was for Astana to say hey world, that story is a joke, it didn't come from our people. Or maybe a good luck, Alberto, we hope we're all still Tour winners when this is over. Instead there were cricket sounds.

Compare that to how Liquigas stuck up for Pellizotti when the UCI came after him and throughout the whole process. It wasn't just talk, I believe their medical staff stepped up too. I know which team I'd rather be on if things got rough.
 
Jul 22, 2009
754
0
0
jmax22 said:
This from the latest article:

“After winning two Tours, a Giro and a Vuelta with them, they haven’t even issued a statement of support,” Contador complained. “And I haven’t been paid since September.”

Why would your team issue a statement of support after you tested positive and the case is still ongoing? How would they definitively know you didn't dope when scientific evidence says exactly the opposite. He's pretty ignorant to think that his team should back him up. And as far as not being paid? It's pretty standard procedure that a team stops paying you when you test positive.

And stop the "I've never tested positive before" excuse. Like Lance, that is beyond lame. If I get pulled over and cited for speeding, I really don't think I can go to court and say "Well judge, I couldn't have been speeding because I've never had a speeding ticket before."

These are exactly the reasons the general public cannot take professional cycling seriously. Athletes like Contador and Lance continue to insult our intelligence while believing that what they say is actually believable to others.

The same way you insult our when you insinuate that "How would they definitively know you didn't dope when scientific evidence says exactly the opposite.

Doping is not the same as testing positive. If you do not know the difference then you owe it to yourself to find out what the difference is. If you don't know that 50 picograms of clenbuterol IS NOT doping then maybe you ought to read, inform yourself and then opine.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
offbyone said:
Ok, I lost you. Now you are accusing schleck of being a doper in some kind of double conspiracy with contador in the same program? Sure, whatever makes you feel better.



Oh I have been following along, but that doesn't mean it is right. By the way the quick solution the UCI promised has seemed to evaporate, hasn't it?

You yourself have posted many a post preaching morality and ethics. So, how can you honestly make an exception for one doper but not another?



Ahh we get to the heart of matters. Exceptions are ok for contador, but not armstrong. Sure that sounds fair.



I don't expect anything. But that doesn't mean I can't hope. If you allow exceptions to the rules or the process then the system will fail. You are rationalizing letting contador off the hook because the system has failed in the past.



They tried to give a pass to valverde as well, but he ended up more or less paying his time.



That is not the kind of attitude that will help the fight against doping and you yourself are a preacher of that fight, but clearly you are having a hard time swallowing your own medicine.

Quit rationalizing giving contador a pass because you are a fan boy.
great post !!!
 
May 24, 2010
3,444
0
0
theswordsman said:
Wow, there's some bullying going on here. Let's try some facts and logic.

#1. This case is only about Clenbuterol. People who aren't allowed to leak information from labs allegedly did so from Cologne, a lab that only saw ten samples from the Tour de France. Those same sources claimed unofficially that a plasticizer test was applied. The Spanish lab that designed the as yet unapproved test wasn't contacted to see that the protocol was properly done. I saw one article that said the Spanish test wasn't even the one used, it was another unapproved one. But it doesn't matter. If you've ever refilled a bottled water bottle, you've probably got plasticizers in your system. That's the reason they say on the label that you're not supposed to do it. And the bike bottles used by Astana and a few other teams advertise that they have a special substance added to help the plastic break down quickly so as to be biodegradable. Things like that need to be examined before the test will ever be approved. The head of the lab that came up with the test admitted that they need to do more research on how plasticizers get into people in everyday life.

But the main reason plasticizers don't need to be part of this discussion is that Contador gave public permission for the labs to store his samples for years and to retest once a test is approved. That's a big deal, because according to the IO Report, everyone else's samples from the Tour were only to be stored for three months. So if a test was approved tomorrow, Contador is the only one who could be retested. So if he's found innocent for Clenbuterol via contamination, he's not off the hook for possible blood transfusion, even though every other rider from the Tour is. It's just delayed. You have zero scientific data on his level of plasticizers or any other riders, so give it up already, knowing that if a test is approved, and he did cheat, he'll be the one from the 2008 Tour that's busted. The case is about a tiny amount of Clenbuterol, and ultimately, whether a couple of humans at WADA screwed up by not setting a minimum threshold for a positive. And Alberto's legal team includes a guy who not only worked for the UCI on past occasions, but also beat them on the Pellizotti bio passport case. If you recall, the UCI said for ages that they weren't going after their first cyclist with the passport until they had all their bases covered legally to make sure they won in court. Pellizotti's lawyer beat them.

By the way, the same UCI that violated Ethics by talking putting pressure on the Competition Committee this week, stating in one breath that the Contador decision is simple (even though it took them two months for two organizations and 600 pages), and also that the Committee probably wasn't up to dealing with it because it's so scientific. They're the same ones that told Contador it was contamination, and recommended the only expert he had working on his defense the first month.

If you really care about the battle against doping in sports, ask why the AFLD still has stored samples from the 2000 & 2001 Tours de France, but the UCI didn't want this year's samples stored, even though this awesome plasticizer test so many of you love is in the works. Ask why the Lausanne WADA Lab could return all TdF test results within 72 hours, but it took the Cologne Lab with their sophisticated equipment more than a month to deal with their ten TdF samples.
BRAVO, well thought out, well written! you summed that up perfectly. one thing all the contributors to this thread don't address is the burden on the prosecution in such an all or nothing case. They should be able to establish intent and guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just as Contador will not be able to prove he ate that clenbuterol in a steak. It seems that the authorities cannot prove that he got it into his system in any other way, either. That is why so many doubters want to cling to the "plasticizers" theory. It would give their transfusion theory credibility. But as you've so correctly pointed out, in this case it is still in the unapproved state of development and it was even used in an unauthorized manner. How much more slipshod can you get? And then they want to suspend a rider, and strip him of the sports biggest title based on a bunch of unapproved testing methods, for a drug (that doesn't even belong under the "doping" umbrella,) that was found in such trace amounts as to be useless. As the swordsman has pointed out, AC has been open from the initial outing of these findings. He has offered his blood for testing in future years, as tests are developed. Does that sound like he is afraid of his blood revealing some dastardly facts later on??? Many of you think he's "whining" I sure wish I could hear you guys if you were just about to lose your job. Or, if your guy/girl left you for somebody else. I wonder if it would sound like "whining" to you, as y'all fought for your lives.
Let me repeatBRAVO!!! to theswordsman
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
nowhereman said:
BRAVO, well thought out, well written! you summed that up perfectly. one thing all the contributors to this thread don't address is the burden on the prosecution in such an all or nothing case. They should be able to establish intent and guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just as Contador will not be able to prove he ate that clenbuterol in a steak. It seems that the authorities cannot prove that he got it into his system in any other way, either. That is why so many doubters want to cling to the "plasticizers" theory. It would give their transfusion theory credibility. But as you've so correctly pointed out, in this case it is still in the unapproved state of development and it was even used in an unauthorized manner. How much more slipshod can you get? And then they want to suspend a rider, and strip him of the sports biggest title based on a bunch of unapproved testing methods, for a drug (that doesn't even belong under the "doping" umbrella,) that was found in such trace amounts as to be useless. As the swordsman has pointed out, AC has been open from the initial outing of these findings. He has offered his blood for testing in future years, as tests are developed. Does that sound like he is afraid of his blood revealing some dastardly facts later on??? Many of you think he's "whining" I sure wish I could hear you guys if you were just about to lose your job. Or, if your guy/girl left you for somebody else. I wonder if it would sound like "whining" to you, as y'all fought for your lives.
Let me repeatBRAVO!!! to theswordsman
Yeah, he's whining. Not saying he's not allowed to whine. But the fact remains: he's whining.
If I cheat on my girlfriend, and she then decides to leave me, I'll probably be whining too, and deservedly so.

By the way: so you buy the steak-story over the bloodtransfusion story?
Please note that the bloodtransfusion hypothesis finds compelling support in the following:

- an anonymous but in all likelihood reliable source in the HUMO (nb: I haven't seen AC file charges against the HUMO)

- the plasticizers (nb: though a rumor it is, it is still a rumor, and AC has not addressed it in any of his public performances)

- AC's initials on Fuentes' list (nb: I haven't heard AC address that ever. Jaksche, a Fuentes customer, has confirmed the initials were
Contador's.)

- the fact that AC won 3 TdF's and a couple of other GT's amid doped riders (haven't heard AC complain about other doped riders ever)

Now I challenge you (and others AC fanboys): give me one piece of data concerning AC's CLEN-positive that cannot be explained by the bloodtransfusion theory.
 
May 24, 2010
3,444
0
0
Willy_Voet said:
Wow, there's some random babbling and rampant speculation going on in that post.
Not by a long shot. I think you need to read it again. And try reading it slowly this time.
I know you're going to feel insulted by that suggestion, and that's too bad. Because it doesn't change the fact that your empty comment called for that kind of response. Most of the naysayers to AC on this thread want to ignore that the plasticizer test is still a work in progress. Then, they firmly believe, and subsequently want a conviction, based on an as yet unapproved test that was administered in an unauthorized manner. 2 negatives used to determine someones future. I'd like to know how happy they'd/you be if they/you were in a criminal situation themselves, and their future relied on similar strategies used by the prosecution against y'all.
Once again, AC is doing what he has to, to defend himself against accusations of deliberate intention to cheat, using drugs that have been declared to be performance enhancing. Why are so many people so motivated to accuse him of cheating right off the top, with such skimpy and incomplete evidence. IMHO, Prosecuting this case with INTEGRITY is of the utmost importance, as important as catching dopers. Without integrity it is just another witch hunt, another Railroading. I ask once again, will railroading AC away be good for our sport? If your answer is Yes, there's no reason to talk any further. You obviously don't see the forest for the trees, and doping will continue, no matter what you think. You'll see.
 
May 24, 2010
3,444
0
0
theswordsman said:
And on the original topic, if he makes you that angry, it's easy to not click on articles with quotes from him. There aren't many. I've had to do it with Cav, Schlecklet, Wiggins and O'Grady. I don't expect them to stop talking, or other people not to be interested in what they have to say. I just don't click.

Contador won a lot of races for Astana. He spent a lot of time with various members at races, camps and training. He helped them to the top ranking earlier in the year. Now he hasn't been paid since September, but that isn't his complaint, even though it's big money. Somehow a sketchy site called Humo claimed to have gotten an exclusive interview with a person affiliated with Astana with close personal knowledge of Contador's behavior. Other press treated it like the Wall Street Journal had come up with a smoking gun that tied everything together. There was supposed to be more detail in the magazines, but there wasn't a single new article about it on Google News in any language after it hit newsstands. I imagine it's because any journo who looked at the magazine would have realized what nonsense it was that they'd be a reliable source to break a pro cycling story, or that someone from Astana would have decided they were the place to tell the story. Seriously, check out humo.be

All Alberto wanted in the way of support was for Astana to say hey world, that story is a joke, it didn't come from our people. Or maybe a good luck, Alberto, we hope we're all still Tour winners when this is over. Instead there were cricket sounds.

Compare that to how Liquigas stuck up for Pellizotti when the UCI came after him and throughout the whole process. It wasn't just talk, I believe their medical staff stepped up too. I know which team I'd rather be on if things got rough.
Again, I agree with you. And furthermore, if we go back to the fall of 2009. While Astana was busy letting everybody that wanted to go to Radio Shack flee. They had a death grip on AC, even though he wanted to leave the team himself. I know nobody has forgotten that tug of war, unless they want to selectively forget it. Astana should have known all along that he would likely bolt once his contract was fulfilled after that war for his services. And that is exactly what was done. At the height of his value, he signed his services up with Saxo Bank. It was no betrayal. It was simply business. That Astana is not living up to it's contractual commitments with him is criminal. They forced him to complete his contractual obligations and now they don't want to pay him. And no, his case has not been completed, so he has not been found to be officially guilty yet, so they should still be obliged to pay him, until a verdict is rendered.
 
nowhereman said:
Hmm don't we put people to death with less of a certainty, and just at reasonable doubt? If you want to fix the system, go fix that system. It deals with real life and death.

Strict liability says that if it is there, he is guilty of doping.

Simple.

What all or nothing? All or nothing about what?

What burden on the prosecution?

Who cares about the plasticizer test. It just adds fuel to the fire.

Strict (!) liability. Get it?

Dave.
 
May 8, 2009
376
0
0
sniper said:
Now I challenge you (and others AC fanboys): give me one piece of data concerning AC's CLEN-positive that cannot be explained by the bloodtransfusion theory.
I am not him and I am not a fanboy, but your phrase has no logic whatsoever. There needs to be causality, one cannot think the other way around. For example if I am rich you could not say "give me one piece of data concerning your wealth that cannot be explained by a lottery prize". Sure it could be explained by that, but first you need to check if that is the case.

I believe Contador and others are dopers, hence deserving a 2 years ban. I just don't accept your argument. As it is now Contador should be banned since he had clemb in his blood. That is it. Just if he would prove that the clemb arrive to his blood from contaminated meat or anything else his case should be reviewed. It is almost impossible to prove that, so he is done I think.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
theswordsman said:
Wow, there's some bullying going on here. Let's try some facts and logic.

#1. This case is only about Clenbuterol. People who aren't allowed to leak information from labs allegedly did so from Cologne, a lab that only saw ten samples from the Tour de France. Those same sources claimed unofficially that a plasticizer test was applied. The Spanish lab that designed the as yet unapproved test wasn't contacted to see that the protocol was properly done. I saw one article that said the Spanish test wasn't even the one used, it was another unapproved one. But it doesn't matter. If you've ever refilled a bottled water bottle, you've probably got plasticizers in your system. That's the reason they say on the label that you're not supposed to do it. And the bike bottles used by Astana and a few other teams advertise that they have a special substance added to help the plastic break down quickly so as to be biodegradable. Things like that need to be examined before the test will ever be approved. The head of the lab that came up with the test admitted that they need to do more research on how plasticizers get into people in everyday life.

But the main reason plasticizers don't need to be part of this discussion is that Contador gave public permission for the labs to store his samples for years and to retest once a test is approved. That's a big deal, because according to the IO Report, everyone else's samples from the Tour were only to be stored for three months. So if a test was approved tomorrow, Contador is the only one who could be retested. So if he's found innocent for Clenbuterol via contamination, he's not off the hook for possible blood transfusion, even though every other rider from the Tour is. It's just delayed. You have zero scientific data on his level of plasticizers or any other riders, so give it up already, knowing that if a test is approved, and he did cheat, he'll be the one from the 2008 Tour that's busted. The case is about a tiny amount of Clenbuterol, and ultimately, whether a couple of humans at WADA screwed up by not setting a minimum threshold for a positive. And Alberto's legal team includes a guy who not only worked for the UCI on past occasions, but also beat them on the Pellizotti bio passport case. If you recall, the UCI said for ages that they weren't going after their first cyclist with the passport until they had all their bases covered legally to make sure they won in court. Pellizotti's lawyer beat them.

By the way, the same UCI that violated Ethics by talking putting pressure on the Competition Committee this week, stating in one breath that the Contador decision is simple (even though it took them two months for two organizations and 600 pages), and also that the Committee probably wasn't up to dealing with it because it's so scientific. They're the same ones that told Contador it was contamination, and recommended the only expert he had working on his defense the first month.

If you really care about the battle against doping in sports, ask why the AFLD still has stored samples from the 2000 & 2001 Tours de France, but the UCI didn't want this year's samples stored, even though this awesome plasticizer test so many of you love is in the works. Ask why the Lausanne WADA Lab could return all TdF test results within 72 hours, but it took the Cologne Lab with their sophisticated equipment more than a month to deal with their ten TdF samples.
if this case is only about clenbuterol how come you barely mention it and spend most of the post babbling about the plasticizer test and questionable ethics which really don't matter?

this case HAS become very simple - as simple as where did the clenbuterol come from? it's not a court of law. the rules are clear, there's no threshold. the "prosecution" doesn't have to prove anything because the lab did their work for them. it's contador's job to prove contamination.

theswordsman said:
All Alberto wanted in the way of support was for Astana to say hey world, that story is a joke, it didn't come from our people. Or maybe a good luck, Alberto, we hope we're all still Tour winners when this is over. Instead there were cricket sounds.

Compare that to how Liquigas stuck up for Pellizotti when the UCI came after him and throughout the whole process. It wasn't just talk, I believe their medical staff stepped up too. I know which team I'd rather be on if things got rough.
as far as astana supporting contador - why would they? he's already transferred to another team and he's no longer their problem. they have nothing to gain in doing so. or maybe, just maybe contador's PR people would like to position him as a sympathetic figure. sorry, contador's playing the victim card and you fell for it.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
khardung la said:
I am not him and I am not a fanboy, but your phrase has no logic whatsoever. There needs to be causality, one cannot think the other way around. For example if I am rich you could not say "give me one piece of data concerning your wealth that cannot be explained by a lottery prize". Sure it could be explained by that, but first you need to check if that is the case.

I believe Contador and others are dopers, hence deserving a 2 years ban. I just don't accept your argument. As it is now Contador should be banned since he had clemb in his blood. That is it. Just if he would prove that the clemb arrive to his blood from contaminated meat or anything else his case should be reviewed. It is almost impossible to prove that, so he is done I think.
It's very simple: I challenge those who believe AC did not do blooddoping to fill in the dots in the following sentence:
"the bloodtransfusion hypothesis does not account for the fact that [...]"

p.s. I'm not saying such argumentation has any legal potential, it doesn't. It's just a way of establishing which scenario is most plausible: steak or bloodtransfusion.
 
May 24, 2010
3,444
0
0
D-Queued said:
Hmm don't we put people to death with less of a certainty, and just at reasonable doubt? If you want to fix the system, go fix that system. It deals with real life and death.

Strict liability says that if it is there, he is guilty of doping.

Simple.

What all or nothing? All or nothing about what?

What burden on the prosecution?

Who cares about the plasticizer test. It just adds fuel to the fire.

Strict (!) liability. Get it?

Dave.
Wow, are you proud of that, my man?
Yeah, no burden on the prosecution to prove their point. Black and white. Tiny, useless presence of Clen= execution. That will solve all problems, and convince the world how committed Bicycling is to cleaning up their sport.
The real question is....Do YOU "GET IT"?
No answer necessary, unless you feel the need to therapeutically rage at me.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
theswordsman said:
Wow, there's some bullying going on here. Let's try some facts and logic.
Firstly - I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in researching a lot of the articles on the Contador case.

However, I want to try and establish some of the facts in this case - as I have not really followed it after the initial announcement.
theswordsman said:
#1. This case is only about Clenbuterol. People who aren't allowed to leak information from labs allegedly did so from Cologne, a lab that only saw ten samples from the Tour de France. Those same sources claimed unofficially that a plasticizer test was applied. The Spanish lab that designed the as yet unapproved test wasn't contacted to see that the protocol was properly done. I saw one article that said the Spanish test wasn't even the one used, it was another unapproved one. But it doesn't matter. If you've ever refilled a bottled water bottle, you've probably got plasticizers in your system. That's the reason they say on the label that you're not supposed to do it. And the bike bottles used by Astana and a few other teams advertise that they have a special substance added to help the plastic break down quickly so as to be biodegradable. Things like that need to be examined before the test will ever be approved. The head of the lab that came up with the test admitted that they need to do more research on how plasticizers get into people in everyday life.
Completely agree that this case is only about the clenbuterol - I am not interested in the plasticizers part of ACs sample as it is yet to be accepted and will not be an official part of the proceedings against AC.

However in the NYT piece it does not say which lab did the test - so I don't see where it can be suggested that the information came "from the same source".

theswordsman said:
But the main reason plasticizers don't need to be part of this discussion is that Contador gave public permission for the labs to store his samples for years and to retest once a test is approved. That's a big deal, because according to the IO Report, everyone else's samples from the Tour were only to be stored for three months. So if a test was approved tomorrow, Contador is the only one who could be retested. So if he's found innocent for Clenbuterol via contamination, he's not off the hook for possible blood transfusion, even though every other rider from the Tour is. It's just delayed. You have zero scientific data on his level of plasticizers or any other riders, so give it up already, knowing that if a test is approved, and he did cheat, he'll be the one from the 2008 Tour that's busted. The case is about a tiny amount of Clenbuterol, and ultimately, whether a couple of humans at WADA screwed up by not setting a minimum threshold for a positive. And Alberto's legal team includes a guy who not only worked for the UCI on past occasions, but also beat them on the Pellizotti bio passport case. If you recall, the UCI said for ages that they weren't going after their first cyclist with the passport until they had all their bases covered legally to make sure they won in court. Pellizotti's lawyer beat them.
You mention the IO report - be careful there, as the report says there was no formal arrangement by the UCI to hold samples beyond 3 months, this does not mean that the labs cannot hold on to the samples beyond that timeframe.

To the blue- has AC made a formal request to hold his samples for reanalysis? Because what people say in the press and what actually happens are usually two very different things.

theswordsman said:
By the way, the same UCI that violated Ethics by talking putting pressure on the Competition Committee this week, stating in one breath that the Contador decision is simple (even though it took them two months for two organizations and 600 pages), and also that the Committee probably wasn't up to dealing with it because it's so scientific. They're the same ones that told Contador it was contamination, and recommended the only expert he had working on his defense the first month.
Ethics? UCI???

theswordsman said:
If you really care about the battle against doping in sports, ask why the AFLD still has stored samples from the 2000 & 2001 Tours de France, but the UCI didn't want this year's samples stored, even though this awesome plasticizer test so many of you love is in the works. Ask why the Lausanne WADA Lab could return all TdF test results within 72 hours, but it took the Cologne Lab with their sophisticated equipment more than a month to deal with their ten TdF samples.
Again a word of caution.
The IO report (on page 32)stated that "For those samples sent to the Lausanne Laboratory, the UCI requested expedited analysis of the negative results no later than 72 hours from the time samples were received by the laboratory" - no such arrangement was done with the Cologne lab but they did have negative results issued within '10 working days'.

This does not mean that a 'no negative' test can be declared positive - it may mean it is required for further testing and evaluation.
This is covered in WADAs International Standard for Laboratories.
So a turnaround of a month to declare an AAF is both normal and acceptable.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
nowhereman said:
Wow, are you proud of that, my man?
Yeah, no burden on the prosecution to prove their point. Black and white. Tiny, useless presence of Clen= execution. That will solve all problems, and convince the world how committed Bicycling is to cleaning up their sport.
The real question is....Do YOU "GET IT"?
No answer necessary, unless you feel the need to therapeutically rage at me.
hm. think Dave was merely saying (a) people get executed in cases where there is far less clear-cut evidence than there is in AC's case and (b) AC is not being hanged, but merely being banned for two (?) years, and will nonetheless remain one of the richest (ex)riders on the planet, so will really have very little to complain afterwards.
 
offbyone said:
OK, I lost you. Now you are accusing Schleck of being a doper in some kind of double conspiracy with Contador in the same program? Sure, whatever makes you feel better.
I see I'm talking to someone who is being willfully ignorant and purposely combative. If there were any "programs" to be on, they were both on them. Or is it the Armstrong syndrome again, where a rider can beat a field of doped riders because he's Superman? Schleck is not Superman, so that leaves one other option.


offbyone said:
Oh I have been following along, but that doesn't mean it is right. By the way the quick solution the UCI promised has seemed to evaporate, hasn't it?
That's because the UCI got caught out when the news became public, before they could completely sweep it under the rug as they were attempting to do. Now the Spanish Federation have 600 pages of crap to translate. That's where the quick decision went. Again, you're not paying attention.


offbyone said:
You yourself have posted many a post preaching morality and ethics. So, how can you honestly make an exception for one doper but not another?
I'm not a church deacon. I have no pulpit. I hate Armstrong and have made no secret about it ever. As for morality and ethics, yes, they have been issues I've addressed when it comes to organized corruption, intimidation, cronyism between riders and the UCI, bribery, etc.

You're purposely misconstruing my statements to equate Armstrong and Contador. Last I checked, Contador isn't part of a Federal investigation into money laundering, bribery and steroid pedaling. But hey, that's just me splitting hairs.

Other than that, should they should be treated the same? And that would be how, exactly? If we go by your logic, Contador should get off on a technicality like Armstrong did in 1999.

Would that be fair enough for you?


offbyone said:
Ahh we get to the heart of matters. Exceptions are OK for Contador, but not Armstrong. Sure that sounds fair.
Seeing as Armstrong has gotten away with everything he's done, and he was never sanctioned or even investigated by the US cycling federation (oh wait, I forgot-the head of that organization is an Armstrong crony and apologist!!!) or the UCI (ah, this is where those "donations" come in handy) then yes, I agree with you. Both should be treated the same. Not for the sake of justice, but just to see people like you get upset.


offbyone said:
I don't expect anything. But that doesn't mean I can't hope. If you allow exceptions to the rules or the process then the system will fail. You are rationalizing letting Contador off the hook because the system has failed in the past.
I'm not rationalizing. YOU are. I'm trying to explain to you what the governing bodies will decide according to their best interests. You seem to think that I want Contador to slide because I'm a fan of his and not of Armstrong. If that is what's really irking you, why not just say so?


offbyone said:
They tried to give a pass to Valverde as well, but he ended up more or less paying his time.
The Valverde investigation was an utter and complete joke, as was the whole Operation Puerto fiasco.


offbyone said:
That is not the kind of attitude that will help the fight against doping and you yourself are a preacher of that fight, but clearly you are having a hard time swallowing your own medicine.
I preach the fight against Armstrong. No other doper has done what he has. That's why he's under Federal investigation. Maybe it's about time you realize that Armstrong wasn't just a doper, and that there is a clear distinction between what he's accused of doing and what other riders have done.


offbyone said:
Quit rationalizing giving Contador a pass because you are a fan boy.
The only reason I spent so much time answering your nonsensical drivel is because a fool should never get the last word in. If you can equate a minuscule amount of clenbutarol to an organized international doping ring complete with bribes to the UCI, blood doping and witness intimidation then you truly are as clueless as you sound.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
nowhereman said:
BRAVO, well thought out, well written! you summed that up perfectly. one thing all the contributors to this thread don't address is the burden on the prosecution in such an all or nothing case. They should be able to establish intent and guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just as Contador will not be able to prove he ate that clenbuterol in a steak. It seems that the authorities cannot prove that he got it into his system in any other way, either. That is why so many doubters want to cling to the "plasticizers" theory. It would give their transfusion theory credibility. But as you've so correctly pointed out, in this case it is still in the unapproved state of development and it was even used in an unauthorized manner. How much more slipshod can you get? And then they want to suspend a rider, and strip him of the sports biggest title based on a bunch of unapproved testing methods, for a drug (that doesn't even belong under the "doping" umbrella,) that was found in such trace amounts as to be useless. As the swordsman has pointed out, AC has been open from the initial outing of these findings. He has offered his blood for testing in future years, as tests are developed. Does that sound like he is afraid of his blood revealing some dastardly facts later on??? Many of you think he's "whining" I sure wish I could hear you guys if you were just about to lose your job. Or, if your guy/girl left you for somebody else. I wonder if it would sound like "whining" to you, as y'all fought for your lives.
Let me repeatBRAVO!!! to theswordsman
There is a simple reason why 'contributors do not need to address it', as it is not up to the RFEC (or UCI or WADA if they appeal) to 'address it'.

Clenbuterol was found in ACs sample - it is up to him to show either 'no fault or negligence' or "no significant fault or negligence"
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Dr. Maserati said:
There is a simple reason why 'contributors do not need to address it', as it is not up to the RFEC (or UCI or WADA if they appeal) to 'address it'.

Clenbuterol was found in ACs sample - it is up to him to show either 'no fault or negligence' or "no significant fault or negligence"
Exactly. Sad that you needed to spell that out once more.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Benotti69 said:
not half as funny as watching a big mouthed bully trying to convince the world he never tested positive :D
Sorry your man Alberto is reaching deep into his pocket, a pocketful of douche baggage.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
sniper said:
flicker said:
I think the UCI has really tried to do the right thing here./QUOTE]

Does that include offering AC his defense strategy (foodcontamination) as well as arranging a public statement of support from this Dutch Doctor De Boer?
I hate to see Alberto burn his hard earned savings on a no hope case. I like Alberto but he is naive to think he can beat this one. He of course has the right to fight as hard as possible.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY