Competition Committee makes big move in Contador case

[M Sport]

sure sounds like an acquittal or a negotiated reduced sentence of some sort is coming.

If they were handing out a 2 year ban, I don't think they would be seeking cooperation

I agree. I would say RFEC have already come to a conclusion, it's probably an aquittal or an under 6 month suspension therefore they need to start the political negotiations. I don't think they would need to explain a 1-2 year ban, they would have just handed it out if that was the case.

 

[D-Queued]

No WADA no Olympics is the short answer.

Before someone says so what...

No Olympics, no NSO's and no government support for cycling... no amateur cycling.

Dave.

 

[Kodiak]

Why was it 'kept secret' for so long? What research was the UCI doing before leaking the positive test?

Good on the RFEC for covering their bases!

Uhhh, It was AC's brother that "leaked" the positive test. Mickeyboy would have rather let it stay under the radar.

 

[hfer07]

Uhhh, It was AC's brother that "leaked" the positive test.

come again???? It was the lab in Cologne,Germany responsible for the "leak"
Please get informed before you post trash like that:mad

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think Berzin is referring to the bigger picture - the peloton as a whole.

Funny that McQuaid says the doping cases are too expensive and then blatently states that if the RFEC doesn't find to the UCI's liking, it will appeal. Why doesn't the UCI respect the RFEC's decision? It seems like Indian giving to me -- here you take the case, but we'll decide when we want it back....

McQuaid doesn't say any of that....
He says it is for the RFEC to decide - which it is.
Then he says the UCI spend "too much" on anti-doping, an interesting slip up.


McQuaids quote.

“I've been in contact with our offices in Aigle but nothing has arrived over there. The system is that the Spanish federation must come to a solution. Some say the UCI should cover this instead of the national federations but who's going to pay for it? We already spend too much... or better, we spend a huge amount of money on the anti-doping department. Most national federations judge on these matters seriously and as a result the UCI doesn't have to appeal in many cases,”

 

[theswordsman]

I'm not actually following the thread, or posting all of the articles I've come across. But this one just hit for you fans of the plasticizer theory. The next month could be interesting.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/plastico/prueba/dopaje/elpepidep/20110110elpepidep_23/Tes

By the way, someone asked Contador today about the Competition Committee move, and he reminded that his people turned over copies of everything to the UCI at the same time they turned the defense over to the RFEC. So the UCI has had since November to look over the reports and studies.
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2011/01/09/ciclismo/1294590290.html

I thought that this quote from Pat McQuaid today (Cycling News article) said a lot:

"We already spend too much... or better, we spend a huge amount of money on the anti-doping department."

Also the idea that McQuaid and the office claim they haven't seen anything, but someone agreed to a January 24 deadline?

There was a Juan Carlos Castana interview that confirmed. Have fun
http://www.deia.com/2011/01/09/deportes/ciclismo/no-habra-trato-de-favor-con-contador

 

[Ferminal]

I'm not actually following the thread, or posting all of the articles I've come across. But this one just hit for you fans of the plasticizer theory. The next month could be interesting.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/plastico/prueba/dopaje/elpepidep/20110110elpepidep_23/Tes

The study included 10 patients undergoing blood transfusions and 100 healthy individuals as controls, which were compared with analysis performed on 468 urine samples from doping control officers taken between January and June 2010.

While 100 people in the control group remained below a set limit, the 10 people undergoing transfusion multiplied by several times the highest amount found in the control group and four samples of athletes used. Interestingly three of the samples with plasticizers, corresponding to three riders on the same team checked out of competition the same day. "It has been clearly demonstrated," the study concludes, "that the urinary levels of secondary metabolites of DEHP found after a blood transfusion differ significantly from those found in the control group."

The Journal Article referred to is this one -

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wq38m122w4888gr2/

Unfortunately my sh1tty library doesn't have access Could someone with access take a look and summarise it?

From the abstract -

The investigation demonstrates that significantly increased levels of secondary DEHP metabolites were found in urine samples of transfused patients, strongly indicating blood transfusion.

 

[Ferminal]

Nevermind that, I got it - it just wasn't showing up on Scholar.

 

[ozerulz]

Before someone says so what...

No Olympics, no NSO's and no government support for cycling... no amateur cycling.

Dave.

ok so I have been completely ignorant of what WADA is. did some research. I understand that they are in control of amatuer sports for the olympics but what does that have to do with pro cycling? pro and amatuer cycling are separate sports. wouldn't it just be easier to say F off to wada. I mean there was pro cycling prior to WADA. I'm really not trying to stir the pot here. I'm being honest. I am ignorant of the situation and can't understand why the riders and everyone else involved is allowing the sport to be destroyed trying to be the ivory horse of sports. Hell everyone knows that all pros dope in every sport. Someone brought up a table tennis case, exactly my point. Even in something as pathetic as table tennis people are doping so just accept it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

ok so I have been completely ignorant of what WADA is. did some research. I understand that they are in control of amatuer sports for the olympics but what does that have to do with pro cycling? pro and amatuer cycling are separate sports. wouldn't it just be easier to say F off to wada. I mean there was pro cycling prior to WADA. I'm really not trying to stir the pot here. I'm being honest. I am ignorant of the situation and can't understand why the riders and everyone else involved is allowing the sport to be destroyed trying to be the ivory horse of sports. Hell everyone knows that all pros dope in every sport. Someone brought up a table tennis case, exactly my point. Even in something as pathetic as table tennis people are doping so just accept it.

Who is the current cycling Olympic road race champion and was he amateur when he won? ....The Olympics hasn't been amateur in years.

The UCI is quite a poor International Federation (IF) with a turnover of just $20 million a year. Much of that comes from the IOC, and to be part of that you have to sign the WADA Code, which cycling was the last to do in 2004.

And no, not "all pros dope in every sport" - and you may want to check a little more in to the reason WADA was set up by the IOC in the first place - it was a direct result of the 'Festina Affair'.

 

[Granville57]

ok so I have been completely ignorant of what WADA is.

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/A-Brief-History-of-Anti-Doping/

 

[Merckx index]

Thanks for the link. I can't access the full article (without paying for it), but I see in the Abstract they claim a relatively low variability in levels over time in the same subject. This is not what another study that I posted here last summer claimed, and which I took at the time to be a major break for Bert. If the variability is as low as they claim, and if Bert's levels of DEHP are what that original graph that was posted here way back when shows, then this is bad news for him. All the published studies I have seen indicate that transfusers generally have very high levels of DEHP; the question is one of false positives, i.e., what proportion of non-transfusers may have similarly high levels, at least some of the time. If there are significant proportion of false positives, then this method isn't going to be acceptable. This study seems to be claiming that false positives can be reduced to a very low level.

But of course, this is not a validated test, and can be used only as supporting evidence for a case. So the question is how much value will be given to Bert's DEHP levels, again, assuming that they really were as reported originally.

 

[runninboy]

Who is the current cycling Olympic road race champion and was he amateur when he won? ....The Olympics hasn't been amateur in years.

The UCI is quite a poor International Federation (IF) with a turnover of just $20 million a year. Much of that comes from the IOC, and to be part of that you have to sign the WADA Code, which cycling was the last to do in 2004.

And no, not "all pros dope in every sport" - and you may want to check a little more in to the reason WADA was set up by the IOC in the first place - it was a direct result of the 'Festina Affair'.

Another astute observation by the good doctor.
One might also point out before the Olympics were opened to professionals that the vast majority of athletes were not doping. Yes there were countries & sports where they definitely were, the Eastern European swimmers immediately come to mind, but by and large you had alot of athletes who had dedicated themselves to sport not to be rich but to contend for an olympic medal.

I like to think there are still a few of those out there and hope they kick the pro's to the curb.

 

[BotanyBay]

I'm not actually following the thread, or posting all of the articles I've come across. But this one just hit for you fans of the plasticizer theory. The next month could be interesting.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/plastico/prueba/dopaje/elpepidep/20110110elpepidep_23/Tes

By the way, someone asked Contador today about the Competition Committee move, and he reminded that his people turned over copies of everything to the UCI at the same time they turned the defense over to the RFEC. So the UCI has had since November to look over the reports and studies.
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2011/01/09/ciclismo/1294590290.html

I thought that this quote from Pat McQuaid today (Cycling News article) said a lot:

Also the idea that McQuaid and the office claim they haven't seen anything, but someone agreed to a January 24 deadline?

There was a Juan Carlos Castana interview that confirmed. Have fun
http://www.deia.com/2011/01/09/deportes/ciclismo/no-habra-trato-de-favor-con-contador

The humorous part here is that it's no longer even remotely surprising to catch McQuaid in a bald-faced lie. He tells them without hesitation.

 

[Andynonomous]

Call me a cynic.

This is the interpretation that I read into this situation.


- The RFEC, who are currently investigating Contador, have bought the "tainted meat" excuse.

- The RFEC is secretly proposing to the cycling authorities and Wada to accept the "accidental ingestion" theory as fact.

- They then propose a minor slap on the wrist for Contador for not being careful enough about what he eats (accepting that he never took the Clen intentionally).

- If Wada and the UCI buy this , then the Spanish authorities can claim that the process was fair (ie. not biased in favour of their compatriot).


Everybody saves face -

- RFEC gets their compatriot off (he is officially "innocent" of any intentional doping), with some deniability that the process was biased in favour of their compatriot (since the cycling authorities, and WADA endorsed it).
- UCI gets to claim the process is working (They are upholding their "law" - ie. the rider is responsible for what they ingest).
- Wada maintains their arms-length relationship with cycling, while claiming the process worked (a mostly "innocent" athlete was given an approriately light sanction).
- Spaniards can claim it was all a tempest in a teapot.
- Contador can ride in 2011, and his fans can enjoy watching him in competition.



Of course, it is in all likelyhood, based on a lie (Contador almost certainly did NOT get the clen in his system from tainted meat). But hey, we are looking for a solution here, the truth be damned.

 

[veganrob]

This is the interpretation that I read into this situation.


- The RFEC, who are currently investigating Contador, have bought the "tainted meat" excuse.

- The RFEC is secretly proposing to the cycling authorities and Wada to accept the "accidental ingestion" theory as fact.

- They then propose a minor slap on the wrist for Contador for not being careful enough about what he eats (accepting that he never took the Clen intentionally).

- If Wada and the UCI buy this , then the Spanish authorities can claim that the process was fair (ie. not biased in favour of their compatriot).


Everybody saves face -

- RFEC gets their compatriot off (he is officially "innocent" of any intentional doping), with some deniability that the process was biased in favour of their compatriot (since the cycling authorities, and WADA endorsed it).
- UCI gets gets to claim the process is working (They are upholding their "law" - ie. the rider is responsible for what they ingest).
- Wada maintains their arms-length relationship with cycling, while claiming the process worked (a mostly "innocent" athlete was given an approriately light sanction).
- Spaniards can claim it was all a tempest in a teapot.
- Contador can ride in 2011, and his fans can enjoy watching him in competition.



Of course, it is in all likelyhood, based on a lie (Contador almost certainly did NOT get the clen in his system from tainted meat). But hey, we are looking for a solution here, the truth be damned.

I think that is a pretty good assessment of what is happening.

 

[flicker]

This is the interpretation that I read into this situation.


- The RFEC, who are currently investigating Contador, have bought the "tainted meat" excuse.

- The RFEC is secretly proposing to the cycling authorities and Wada to accept the "accidental ingestion" theory as fact.

- They then propose a minor slap on the wrist for Contador for not being careful enough about what he eats (accepting that he never took the Clen intentionally).

- If Wada and the UCI buy this , then the Spanish authorities can claim that the process was fair (ie. not biased in favour of their compatriot).


Everybody saves face -

- RFEC gets their compatriot off (he is officially "innocent" of any intentional doping), with some deniability that the process was biased in favour of their compatriot (since the cycling authorities, and WADA endorsed it).
- UCI gets gets to claim the process is working (They are upholding their "law" - ie. the rider is responsible for what they ingest).
- Wada maintains their arms-length relationship with cycling, while claiming the process worked (a mostly "innocent" athlete was given an approriately light sanction).
- Spaniards can claim it was all a tempest in a teapot.
- Contador can ride in 2011, and his fans can enjoy watching him in competition.



Of course, it is in all likelyhood, based on a lie (Contador almost certainly did NOT get the clen in his system from tainted meat). But hey, we are looking for a solution here, the truth be damned.

XOOXO Sweet!

 

[runninboy]

This is the interpretation that I read into this situation.


- The RFEC, who are currently investigating Contador, have bought the "tainted meat" excuse.

- The RFEC is secretly proposing to the cycling authorities and Wada to accept the "accidental ingestion" theory as fact.

- They then propose a minor slap on the wrist for Contador for not being careful enough about what he eats (accepting that he never took the Clen intentionally).

- If Wada and the UCI buy this , then the Spanish authorities can claim that the process was fair (ie. not biased in favour of their compatriot).


Everybody saves face -

Of course, it is in all likelyhood, based on a lie (Contador almost certainly did NOT get the clen in his system from tainted meat). But hey, we are looking for a solution here, the truth be damned.

Well not EVERYBODY saves face, the accidental ingestion would implicate the Spanish beef industry and make them ripe for sanctions.
the US beef industry had never had a case of mad cow from homegrown beef. However when it was found that a cow imported from Canada had mad cow US exports were restricted by several countries.

If you accept Contadors alibi that will affect the viability of the Spanish Beef industry. Pretty risky move in todays economic climate.

It will not be looked at as 1 bad cow, it will be an indictment of the industry.