Mambo95 said:
Yes, he should shut up.
He seems to be in some delusional world where he can expect a hearing at which he can defend himself. What sort of world of his is this?
Are they actually doing a hearing - I thought they were just throwing him in a pond to see if he'd float...
jmax22 said:
This is his quote from the article this thread refers to:
"I’m tested every six days during the year, at home, in competition, when I train. I have always been controlled and I have always been fine."
I'm happy to admit that sentence sounds very much like the horrible "I never tested positive". But when I read it, I couldn't help thinking that it's either translated from Spanish or said by Conti in English, a language he sometimes struggles with, and so his meaning could be a bit lost in translation. I'm not sticking up for him with this, but it sounds different when it's like this than when the actual words "I never tested postive" are repeatedly said by, say, an American. Along with the words "I like my story"... Contador has been very clear to state he has never doped. He's been very clear he's happy for his samples to be retested whenever. Also I think he's been very tactful in not attacking any and everything said about him (like the rumoured plastic and the rumoured HUMO source).
biopass said:
Contador:
"Sorry for the inconvenience man, but the positive testresult only came because those f*ckn farmers doped their cattle! These f*ckn spanish farmers f*ck the rules and f*ckn dope their cattle and made me a poor innocent victim of f*ckn contaminated meat!"
Sorry, doesn't quite sound like Conti - sounds more like an anon internet poster who should lay off the pills for a few days... (or get back on them).
biopass said:
WADA:
"19.431 samples of animals from Spain showed no trace of Clenbuterol."
The details of the case itself have been discussed endlessly in other threads, but please confirm to me that the 20k samples of meat were tested to the same level that Conti's blood was. To use this as an argument it is quite key as the Conti case is only here exactly because of the extreme level they were able to test his blood to...
lean said:
it's not a matter of being 100% convinced. it is a matter of what is more likely when you review all of the facts and the timing of events in their entirety. also, you can't just "forget" about the plasticizer data. because it is an imperfect test, the plasiticizer data carries less weight than the clenbuterol but it most certainly factors in.
I'm not 100% convinced, but when I (internally) condemn someone I prefer to do it based on being more convinced than not that someone's guilty. To you there's no plausible explanation apart from doping, that's fine. To me the "smoking gun" in this case is more like a faint picture of something that might as well just be a water pistol. I'm not saying I believe the meat story, but it's not impossible to me either - in the end I think it could still come from somewhere completely unknown and unprovable.
As for the plastic I may have chosen the wrong words: I didn't mean "forget it" in that sense, more in the sense that it's unofficial, it's rumour. As someone else noted we don't actually even know which method they used for the test - if it was even actually done.
However I do completely agree that the low level of clen could be because of a transfusion and that the plastic could be backing that up - I'm just not resigned to accept it just like that because it can all too easily be explained by other factors. Just like an adverse blood value - the fact alone that it's statistically rare only means it happens rarely. It still happens.
lean said:
WRONG
catching dopers and sending the message that testing is rigorous is a very good thing no matter what the outcome/sanctions that result from this case are. i can't believe i have to explain that one.
...
i have to agree that this isn't the most clear cut case i've ever seen but only because of the decision to use a more sensitive test. do you believe contador when he says he never doped and has never done anything wrong? seriously? you realize he's won multiple grand tours in dominating fashion in an era of doping riding for ONCE/Liberty, Disco, & Astana? do you think he did all of those things on bread and water? you lend credibility to this person's comments but none to a scientific plasticizer test?
I think it's funny you can simply, and in capital letters, state that I'm wrong to have an opinion of my own. I can't believe I have to explain that one... I also can't believe you didn't understand what I wrote - sorry about that, must be my fault.
Just for the record; I think it's great to catch and ban dopers - full stop.
But just as you yourself point out it's not the most clear cut case and the case is not about obvious, long term blood manipulation. Even if the Clen pos is because of clen abuse it could still very well be about losing a bit of baby fat - hardly the darkest of doping stories. I just wish that when a rider of Conti's stature is tested positive it was for something more significant then that. If he'd been positive for Perflouro-whats-its-name or some masking agent I'd been saying completely different things about the case...
I'm completely uninterested in the judicial side of the discussion (the strict liability and reversed responsibility of proof) as far as this case goes - all I'm interested in there is if I feel there's proof he's a hardcore doper - and I don't. The strict liability is only interesting to me in a discussion of whether it's a good or bad idea and which situations is should be so (if any).
lean said:
3. contador saying what you'd expect from someone who is innocent. sorry bro, this has ZERO influence as this has been all but perfected by liars the world over
Please note I didn't say that as a defence or to point to his innonce. I noted it because the OP vehemently and very aggressively bemoaned the simple fact that Conti has a voice and a right to speak. In that context it's perfectly acceptable to point out that Conti only speaks what an innocent person in his place would.
The argument that liars would say the same thing is not better than what comes from"woman in mob" in The Life of Brian. Ever seen it?
Woman in mob: "Only the true saviour would deny his divinity"
So basically if Conti denies doping, it's just another proof of his guilt??