Cologne Lab was not required to report Contador positive

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Velocentric said:
$2000 to get to the Canary Islands? Maybe if you fly Air Lance. Regular flights cost no where near that amount from Europe (best I've found to Gran Canaria is £29 - approx $42 - each way).

I think you'll find that Teams use of the Canary Islands has more to do with the consistent climate, the relatively low cost of high class accommodation and the many, many miles of very well maintained roads and fantastic sporting facilities.

But hey, you could be right. It could be all about the $
$42 x 2 (you want to get back to the mainland right?) = $84. Throw in tax, and you got $130. Now throw in hotel, which gets you to $300. But how do you get to the hotel? Well, you rent a car. So now you're up to $500. Then you gotta pay the tester all that extra time, so add another $200 for that and you're up to $700.

Then you gotta fly the sample back refrigerated. How often does FedEx or a major freight carrier fly in or out of the Canary Islands? That's gotta be a $100 premium shipping charge easy. So now you're up to $800.

Then you gotta take into account that it might take the entire day to find Contador or wait for him to come back from his 6 hour training ride (or his 2-hour gynecologist appointment in the hotel room next door). So that means the tester has to stay an extra day, which means double the hotel and rental car fees.

So I can easily see the estimated average cost approaching $1,500 - and that includes the super-discount airfare you quoted which may not be available on short notice when WADA targets its OCC testing.

Given WADA's limited budget, they generally don't fly their testers to exotic locations around the world, as doing so would deplete their allocated budget. But since athletes appear to be strategically using these "training camps" to Mexico, the Canary islands, or the Swiss Alps to specifically bank on testers not showing up....
 
Benotti69 said:
i cant see how he can get off, it is black and white. he tested positive for a substance that was banned at any and all thresholds, but reading the German scientists comments on 'loosening the rules' it seems like he will.:(
I don't know, I really can't see him getting off, not with McQuaid's public statements about Contador sullying the sport, guilty or not, unless by "getting off" you mean getting off lightly with a 1 year sentence and even that will, IMO likely be appealed by WADA.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I asked why the difference between Fuyu Li & Contador - since you appear familiar with the WADA code perhaps you can show me the rule that says its ok to name one rider but not the Tour winner.

The UCI kept it quiet to allow AC come up with a defence - not to coverup the positive.
Fair enough. The answer is simple. Your understanding that the UCI named one rider and not the other is incorrect. Li disclosed his own positive (or it was leaked). I don't see any evidence where McQuaid leaked it first.

Second, McQuaid was absolutely within his right to deny to the media that Contador tested positive since the result had yet to be forwarded to the Spanish federation. All the UCI knew is it had what appeared to be a positive analytical sample of very low concentrations. Once the case was referred to the Spanish federation McQuaid had already admitted it long before that and the media was all over it.

If I were McQuaid, I wouldn't even acknowledge anyone's questions about a positive test because I would simply say, "If there is a pending positive test, it's being adjudicated and I have no comment."

So I'm not so sure why everyone attaches all this hidden meaning as to what McQuaid says and doesn't say. McQuaid doesn't get to decide the guilt or innocence of any athlete so it completely escapes me why people think it means anything.

This is right up there with people who use to get all riled up about **** Pound saying stuff. **** Pound never got to decide the guilt or innocense of a single athlete! So what difference does it make what McQuaid or **** Pound says or doesn't say? I never understood why people put so much emphasis on this nonsense when in fact it means nothing. NOTHING.

And given that 99.9999999% of all athletes who test positive are eventually found guilty (80% of whom later admit they took the substance, and the other 20% continue to lie about it), on what basis are you thinking that it ultimately matters what McQuaid or Pound said in the process?

If you test positive, the WADA system has like a 99% conviction rate. So it doesn't matter what anyone says or doesn't say.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
TERMINATOR said:
Well, you rent a car. So now you're up to $500....So that means the tester has to stay an extra day, which means double the hotel and rental car fees.
So, $400 for a two-day rental car on an island that, at it's best, is 50 miles long and 20 miles wide?

Maybe (just maybe) you take a taxi from the airport to his hotel and just sit there waiting? For one day max?

Plus, why would you pay a tester "extra time"? He's there to do a job, regardless of where it is. Those guys are used to travelling and waiting. It's in the job description.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
MacRoadie said:
That kinda flies in the face of section 14.2.1 of the 2009 WADA Anti-Doping Code:.....
Please consult a lawyer about the meaning of the word "may" in a legal contract. You seem to think it means "must." It does not.

And mods - stop flippantly editing my posts without telling me
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
TERMINATOR said:
Please consult a lawyer about the meaning of the word "may" in a legal contract. You seem to think it means "must." It does not.

And mods - stop flippantly editing my posts without telling me
I never said they "must".

You wrote this (after berating a forum member and their understanding of the WADA code):

The public is only obligated to know after an athlete pleads guilty or is found guilty, neither of which has occurred as of yet. Having a positive analytical test is absolutely not grounds to disclose it to the public.

Which is patently false, based on the cited sections of the WADA code.

Please feel free to go back to my post and find where I took a position on "can" or "must". I simply pointed out that your assertion that the public is "only obligated to know" after a guilty plea is just plain wrong.

I pointed out that the results CAN be made public long before even the B sample is tested.

Also feel free to provide citations in support of your argument, as I have done.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
Fair enough. The answer is simple. Your understanding that the UCI named one rider and not the other is incorrect. Li disclosed his own positive (or it was leaked). I don't see any evidence where McQuaid leaked it first.

Second, McQuaid was absolutely within his right to deny to the media that Contador tested positive since the result had yet to be forwarded to the Spanish federation. All the UCI knew is it had what appeared to be a positive analytical sample of very low concentrations. Once the case was referred to the Spanish federation McQuaid had already admitted it long before that and the media was all over it.

If I were McQuaid, I wouldn't even acknowledge anyone's questions about a positive test because I would simply say, "If there is a pending positive test, it's being adjudicated and I have no comment."

So I'm not so sure why everyone attaches all this hidden meaning as to what McQuaid says and doesn't say. McQuaid doesn't get to decide the guilt or innocence of any athlete so it completely escapes me why people think it means anything.

This is right up there with people who use to get all riled up about **** Pound saying stuff. **** Pound never got to decide the guilt or innocense of a single athlete! So what difference does it make what McQuaid or **** Pound says or doesn't say? I never understood why people put so much emphasis on this nonsense when in fact it means nothing. NOTHING.

And given that 99.9999999% of all athletes who test positive are eventually found guilty (80% of whom later admit they took the substance, and the other 20% continue to lie about it), on what basis are you thinking that it ultimately matters what McQuaid or Pound said in the process?

If you test positive, the WADA system has like a 99% conviction rate. So it doesn't matter what anyone says or doesn't say.
You are incorrect - it was not leaked by Fuyu Li, it was annouced by the UCI as soon as they had the results from the A sample;


Here is the original UCI press release dated 22nd April 2010.
22.04.2010

Description: Earlier today, the UCI advised Chinese rider Li Fuyu that he is provisionally suspended. The decision to provisionally suspend Mr Fuyu was made in response to a report from the WADA accredited laboratory in Ghent indicating an Adverse Analytical Finding of Clenbuterol in a urine sample collected from him at an in-competition test during the Dwaars Door Vlaanderen on 23 March 2010.

The provisional suspension remains in force until a hearing panel convened by the Chinese Cycling Federation determines whether Mr Fuyu has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 21 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

Mr Fuyu has the right to request and attend the analyses of his B sample.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the UCI is unable to provide any additional information at this time.

UCI Press Services
As to the other highlighted point - the UCI (& McQuaid) had an AAF ie positive A&B for a substance with no threshold for a month before it was leaked.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Angliru said:
I don't know, I really can't see him getting off, not with McQuaid's public statements about Contador sullying the sport, guilty or not, unless by "getting off" you mean getting off lightly with a 1 year sentence and even that will, IMO likely be appealed by WADA.
i dont trust anything coming out of the uci, whether it be McQuaid's mouth or other. the different treatment meted out to Li Fuyu and Contador screamed something was up. Now a German Scientist is saying 'loosening the rules', to me it says well lets loosen them enough to let him off on a technicality or other...

i cant see ASO being happy with Contadors positive. McQuaid is not, so how to let him off has been the reason for the huge time delay in the release and how come it has taken this long to even get to this stage.

so it all smells of trying to get Contador off.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Benotti69 said:
i dont trust anything coming out of the uci...

i cant see ASO being happy with Contadors positive.
I hear you loud and clear on the first part re: the UCI.

As for ASO, I don't think they've figured out how they want to dance around this one yet. "Unwelcome" at the Tour? Maybe. ASO will really want the Spanish audience, though. Also, they own--what is it--49% of the Vuelta? And just now we're hearing that AC would be welcome there immediately after serving a one-year ban...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY