Can Contador just shut up and go away?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Berzin said:
Yes, it's all proof in the court of public opinion. All of it is proof without a reasonable doubt, as far as conjecture goes.
Of course, there is proof of CLEN, but the CLEN by itself doesn't proof blooddoping, we all agree.
It's just that we're facing a couple of clearcut indications (you mention most of them) which, taken together, lead to the common-sensical suspition that AC has indeed been doing blooddoping.
No proof, just clues we're talking about. Don't see why you pretend as if these clues aren't any.

And with all due respect, the HUMO story makes five times more sense than AC's steak-story.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Berzin said:
Of course talk is cheap.

If he doesn't say anything, he's not defending himself adequately.

If he does say something, he should just shut up and go away.

Conjecture about blood doping is, in fact, proof. Thanks to what I've read on the internet.

It doesn't matter that the plasticizers tests is unapproved by WADA. Nor does it matter that the Spanish beef industry is up in arms over their product
getting slagged even though it's an industry where drugs are used in just an unethical manner as in cycling.

And we come to these conclusions all because we put two and two together on the internet.

For the biological passport to work, you have to have set parameters that everyone can point to and say "AHA!!! Zere iz zee doping!!!"

But we don't. So the focus of everyone's ire becomes clenbutarol. Some posters, if you ask them, will tell you exactly when he had the blood removed-it must have been right after the Dauphine. And there were his initials on some piece of paper that proves without a shadow of a doubt that he was a client of Dr. Fuentes.

And let's not forget the infamous article in that Belgian magazine that popped the lid off his doping regimen. Gee, where exactly is that Astana employee, anyway?

Yes, it's all proof in the court of public opinion. All of it is proof without a reasonable doubt, as far as conjecture goes.
Nice strawman - I never mentioned nor carefor anything other then the clenbuterol.

To save your keyboard it is not what Contador says that he will be judged on but what he does.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Berzin said:
Of course talk is cheap.

If he doesn't say anything, he's not defending himself adequately.

If he does say something, he should just shut up and go away.

Conjecture about blood doping is, in fact, proof. Thanks to what I've read on the internet.

It doesn't matter that the plasticizers tests is unapproved by WADA. Nor does it matter that the Spanish beef industry is up in arms over their product
getting slagged even though it's an industry where drugs are used in just an unethical manner as in cycling.

And we come to these conclusions all because we put two and two together on the internet.

For the biological passport to work, you have to have set parameters that everyone can point to and say "AHA!!! Zere iz zee doping!!!"

But we don't. So the focus of everyone's ire becomes clenbutarol. Some posters, if you ask them, will tell you exactly when he had the blood removed-it must have been right after the Dauphine. And there were his initials on some piece of paper that proves without a shadow of a doubt that he was a client of Dr. Fuentes.

And let's not forget the infamous article in that Belgian magazine that popped the lid off his doping regimen. Gee, where exactly is that Astana employee, anyway?

Yes, it's all proof in the court of public opinion. All of it is proof without a reasonable doubt, as far as conjecture goes.
did you defend li fuyu as well as contador?
 
patricknd said:
did you defend li fuyu as well as contador?
No, because he doesn't matter. He's an anonymous rider who you wouldn't know about if it weren't for his doping positive for the same amount of clenbutarol as Contador.


hrotha said:
How do you know? Did you read that on the internet?
Nope. I know a few cattle farmers from Europe. You'd be surprised what people reveal after a few Black and Tans at the local Irish pub.
 
pedaling squares said:
How many of them ever shut up and go away? The more I follow cycling, the more I like Jan Ullrich.
Ah yes. Jan Ullrich, a real hero and a great example for professional cycling. On the good stuff since his amateur days with the East German team. We are talking about Astana. Contador had trouble getting paid last year as well. It's probably mafia money anyway. Let him have his whinge. He may go away very soon if the wonderful Spanish legal eagles make the decision everyone expects........but then we also had Operation Puerto.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Berzin said:
No, because he doesn't matter. He's an anonymous rider who you wouldn't know about if it weren't for his doping positive for the same amount of clenbutarol as Contador.




Nope. I know a few cattle farmers from Europe. You'd be surprised what people reveal after a few Black and Tans at the local Irish pub.
i bet it matters to li fuyu. if it's wrong in contador's case it's wrong in his as well.

double standard?
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
I just gave the Juliet Macur article about Contador and plasticizers another read to refresh my memory. It doesn't state that it was a person from the Cologne lab leaking the info, just a person who apparently has no integrity:

"The International Cycling Union drug-testing chaperones took the urine sample from Contador on July 20, the eve of the Tour’s final rest day, said the person, who wanted to remain anonymous because of an agreement to keep the information confidential while Contador’s investigation is continuing. "
So yeah, a person gives their word to keep information secret, then rushes to the phone to share the information with the world. I hate people like that in all walks of life - politics or whatever. Did they plan to keep the promise at the time they made it, or did they lie to get the information and then betray the trust? The only thing they're able to keep confidential is their own name?

But the big sentence of the story is kind of buried.

"Now, however, the failed test for clenbuterol and for the plasticizers appear to have occurred on different days."
People claim that the existence of the plasticizers proves that the Clenbuterol was not from contamination, but he had used it on purpose previously, stored blood, and absolutely positively transfused on the rest day.

But the alleged high plasticizer level was on July 20, a day the urine sample showed no Clenbuterol whatsoever. If what so many people believe is true, the plasticizer level would have been more on the 20th than the 50 picograms found on the 21st. Yet there was zero. If anything, it makes a stronger case that the Clenbuterol, which is the only thing named in the doping case, was from contamination, and that if there was transfused blood, it showed no evidence of prior consumption of Clenbuterol.

The current case is about Clenbuterol. Period. Plasticizers can't be used as supporting evidence because they don't exist in a sample with Clenbuterol. At this point no one can make the plasticizers the bigger part of the story, because the test isn't approved. I've said elsewhere that Contador has given carte blanche in the media to have his samples stored until the plasticizer test is perfected and approved, a big step since the UCI didn't bother to store Tour samples more than three months. If someone wants to make a case for that in the future, so be it.

But the alleged transfusion and plasticizers were July 20, a day with no Clenbuterol. July 21 had the 50 picograms of Clenbuterol, and no mention of plasticizers. That makes them completely independent of each other. And no amount of forum chat, or anger towards a cyclist and those who defend him as innocent until proved guilty, can merge those two together in a court of law.

So, why isn't there Clenbuterol in the sample with the plasticizers?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sports/cycling/05cycling.html?ref=juliet_macur

Happy 28th birthday, Alberto.
 
That's not new information, it's been addressed before. The clenbuterol showing up a day after the plasticizers is allegedly consistent with what you'd expect if the transfusion theory is right. They're different substances, and the human body processes them differently.
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
theswordsman said:
So yeah, a person gives their word to keep information secret, then rushes to the phone to share the information with the world. I hate people like that in all walks of life - politics or whatever. Did they plan to keep the promise at the time they made it, or did they lie to get the information and then betray the trust? The only thing they're able to keep confidential is their own name?
Let's say this source is correct - and the plastic is indeed the extra icing on the cake (or sauce on the steak) that would prove or underline a transfusion. Is the whistle blowing then still bad? With the history of Omerta in sports, isn't this then exactly what is unfortunately needed - that is if the source is correct...
 
ALBERTO Contador, under investigation for returning a positive drug test after apparently eating contaminated meat, is losing his hair and suffering insomnia due to stress and claims his old team owes him two months' pay.

As he awaits the findings of the Spanish Cycling Federation's deliberations, the winner of this year's Tour de France has described himself as ''an example of transparency and cleanliness''.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
thehog said:
ALBERTO Contador, under investigation for returning a positive drug test after apparently eating contaminated meat, is losing his hair and suffering insomnia due to stress and claims his old team owes him two months' pay.

As he awaits the findings of the Spanish Cycling Federation's deliberations, the winner of this year's Tour de France has described himself as ''an example of transparency and cleanliness''.
Contador doesn't have what it takes to be a Euro-Pro bike racer like my Lord Armstrong. You realize that it was Lance,Popo,Horner and Levi who got Astana back on track with their pay schedule during the Giro, when they wore the faded out jerseys during the 09 GIRO.

All the riders that Alberto brought on board to support Alberto in the Tour this year owe the Shack boys for getting their pay checks from Astana this year.

Astana will put the screws on Alberto his brother Fran and Albertos Astana chums from here on out.

Example; Vino not paying his one year fine to the UCI for his doping conviction. I am sorry to see the way Alberto is being treated by Astana but he should have seen it coming.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
theswordsman said:
I just gave the Juliet Macur article about Contador and plasticizers another read to refresh my memory. It doesn't state that it was a person from the Cologne lab leaking the info, just a person who apparently has no integrity:



So yeah, a person gives their word to keep information secret, then rushes to the phone to share the information with the world. I hate people like that in all walks of life - politics or whatever. Did they plan to keep the promise at the time they made it, or did they lie to get the information and then betray the trust? The only thing they're able to keep confidential is their own name?

But the big sentence of the story is kind of buried.



People claim that the existence of the plasticizers proves that the Clenbuterol was not from contamination, but he had used it on purpose previously, stored blood, and absolutely positively transfused on the rest day.

But the alleged high plasticizer level was on July 20, a day the urine sample showed no Clenbuterol whatsoever. If what so many people believe is true, the plasticizer level would have been more on the 20th than the 50 picograms found on the 21st. Yet there was zero. If anything, it makes a stronger case that the Clenbuterol, which is the only thing named in the doping case, was from contamination, and that if there was transfused blood, it showed no evidence of prior consumption of Clenbuterol.

The current case is about Clenbuterol. Period. Plasticizers can't be used as supporting evidence because they don't exist in a sample with Clenbuterol. At this point no one can make the plasticizers the bigger part of the story, because the test isn't approved. I've said elsewhere that Contador has given carte blanche in the media to have his samples stored until the plasticizer test is perfected and approved, a big step since the UCI didn't bother to store Tour samples more than three months. If someone wants to make a case for that in the future, so be it.

But the alleged transfusion and plasticizers were July 20, a day with no Clenbuterol. July 21 had the 50 picograms of Clenbuterol, and no mention of plasticizers. That makes them completely independent of each other. And no amount of forum chat, or anger towards a cyclist and those who defend him as innocent until proved guilty, can merge those two together in a court of law.

So, why isn't there Clenbuterol in the sample with the plasticizers?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sports/cycling/05cycling.html?ref=juliet_macur

Happy 28th birthday, Alberto.
As you say -"The current case is about Clenbuterol. Period." - and I agree, but why then does the word plasticizier appear 11 times in your post?

Again - you are basing a lot of your opinion on these 6 samples having been tested in Cologne - there is simply no evidence (even circumstantial) to suggest this.

As to whoever leaked the info to the German media - well ultimately they were correct to do so. As it looks as though the UCI were trying to keep it quiet for as long as possible.

Also AC is not "innocent until proven guilty" - this is not a US Court of Law. He has been found positive (if he does nothing he will be given 2 years ban)- the process allows him the right to a hearing and an opportunity to show 'No (Significant) Fault or Negligence'.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
As you say -"The current case is about Clenbuterol. Period." - and I agree, but why then does the word plasticizier appear 11 times in your post?

Again - you are basing a lot of your opinion on these 6 samples having been tested in Cologne - there is simply no evidence (even circumstantial) to suggest this.

As to whoever leaked the info to the German media - well ultimately they were correct to do so. As it looks as though the UCI were trying to keep it quiet for as long as possible.

Also AC is not "innocent until proven guilty" - this is not a US Court of Law. He has been found positive (if he does nothing he will be given 2 years ban)- the process allows him the right to a hearing and an opportunity to show 'No (Significant) Fault or Negligence'.


+1

and here is a nice synopsis of the applicable rules, with quotes from the actual WADA Code:

http://theinnerring.blogspot.com/2010/09/wada-code-on-positive-tests.html

Including and to the Doc's Point:

"10.5.2 No Significant Fault or Negligence

If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in an Athlete's Sample in violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced."

i.e. reduced from 2 years to 1.

and:

"Comment to Article 2.1.1: ....If the positive Sample came from an In-Competition test, then the results of that Competition are automatically invalidated (Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results)). However, the Athlete then has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if the Athlete can demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault (Article 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances)) or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance (Article 10.4 (Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances))."

i.e. Stripped of the 2010 TdF Title due to the A and B positive regardless of quantity or vector.

Because:

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample

2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping violation under Article 2.1.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
TubularBills said:
[/B]
+1

and here is a nice synopsis of the applicable rules, with quotes from the actual WADA Code:

http://theinnerring.blogspot.com/2010/09/wada-code-on-positive-tests.html

Including and to the Doc's Point:

"10.5.2 No Significant Fault or Negligence

If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in an Athlete's Sample in violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced."

i.e. reduced from 2 years to 1.

and:

"Comment to Article 2.1.1: ....If the positive Sample came from an In-Competition test, then the results of that Competition are automatically invalidated (Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results)). However, the Athlete then has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if the Athlete can demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault (Article 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances)) or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance (Article 10.4 (Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances))."

i.e. Stripped of the 2010 TdF Title due to the A and B positive regardless of quantity or vector.

Because:

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample

2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping violation under Article 2.1.
great piece of research. lovely, finally some clarity and a "think twice before you whine" to the pro-AC-posters out there
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
TubularBills said:
[/B]
+1

and here is a nice synopsis of the applicable rules, with quotes from the actual WADA Code:

http://theinnerring.blogspot.com/2010/09/wada-code-on-positive-tests.html

Including and to the Doc's Point:

"10.5.2 No Significant Fault or Negligence

If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in an Athlete's Sample in violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced."

i.e. reduced from 2 years to 1.

and:

"Comment to Article 2.1.1: ....If the positive Sample came from an In-Competition test, then the results of that Competition are automatically invalidated (Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results)). However, the Athlete then has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if the Athlete can demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault (Article 10.5 (Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility Based on Exceptional Circumstances)) or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance (Article 10.4 (Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances))."

i.e. Stripped of the 2010 TdF Title due to the A and B positive regardless of quantity or vector.

Because:

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample

2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping violation under Article 2.1.
A perfect explanation and hopefully convincing to the most fervent supporter. Contador got paid lots of Euros to abide by these rules, by the way.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Berzin said:
Contador doesn't seem worried in the least...




And neither does Riis.

"What me worry?" Alfred E. Newman, George W. Bush What the heck a free lunch.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
I can intimately understand 'team-building', but I'm not sure about the value of half-surfing and rocking out to an accordian.

Whatever happen to the Polish (the country, not the innane poster) model of running through the woods in the snow and chopping down trees for a winter camp?

All I'm saying is that based on the current top riders' salaries, maybe they need to be exposed to a little grunt-work to gain perspective (and to build a bond) with the guys who are going to HAVE to throw it down and give up their results potential for the team leader.

Oh yeah, I forgot this was the new culture of pro cycling. Forget the blue-collar nature of what it was, now we have to make sure the millionaire pansies get a nice holiday at their 'training camp' and all in the name of 'team building'.

What in the hell is the point of this? Here are your teammates, let's go have some fun... And, apparently, we're supposed to find this interesting?

If even half of the cycling media paid half the interest in doping that they do on these pointless 'camps' we might be getting somewhere.

Oh, wait... I forgot that at actually digging for a story (and stepping on the golden gooses' toes) isn't nearly as pleasant as getting an 'invite' to report on this new era of 'training camp'.

Boo on the doping culture in cycling. And another Boo on this being perceived as being important news.

What a bunch of spoiled brats...
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I can intimately understand 'team-building', but I'm not sure about the value of half-surfing and rocking out to an accordian.

Whatever happen to the Polish (the country, not the innane poster) model of running through the woods in the snow and chopping down trees for a winter camp?

All I'm saying is that based on the current top riders' salaries, maybe they need to be exposed to a little grunt-work to gain perspective (and to build a bond) with the guys who are going to HAVE to throw it down and give up their results potential for the team leader.

Oh yeah, I forgot this was the new culture of pro cycling. Forget the blue-collar nature of what it was, now we have to make sure the millionaire pansies get a nice holiday at their 'training camp' and all in the name of 'team building'.

What in the hell is the point of this? Here are your teammates, let's go have some fun... And, apparently, we're supposed to find this interesting?

If even half of the cycling media paid half the interest in doping that they do on these pointless 'camps' we might be getting somewhere.

Oh, wait... I forgot that at actually digging for a story (and stepping on the golden gooses' toes) isn't nearly as pleasant as getting an 'invite' to report on this new era of 'training camp'.

Boo on the doping culture in cycling. And another Boo on this being perceived as being important news.

What a bunch of spoiled brats...
I agree, cycling should be more of a boot camp compared to what, kite surfing at a Dutch Carribean Island?

I think a camp like Liquigas in the snow at alLtiude makes way more sense.

I know that the band playing while the boys learn agility skills and practice their after retirement athletic skills is part of Riis idea OF A JOKE AND YES BJARNE IT IS A JOKE.
 
flicker said:
I agree, cycling should be more of a boot camp compared to what, kite surfing at a Dutch Carribean Island?

I think a camp like Liquigas in the snow at alLtiude makes way more sense.

I know that the band playing while the boys learn agility skills and practice their after retirement athletic skills is part of Riis idea OF A JOKE AND YES BJARNE IT IS A JOKE.
Flicker, if I invited you to one of my "training camps" in the Dominican Republic or Colombia you'd come back more focused than ever, and guaranteed you'd forget all about your useless life as a troll.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY