• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Conta-do over? Will ban be reversed?

Oct 11, 2010
740
0
0
Fortunately it won't matter. WADA will appeal and he'll be handed at least a year. Pretty pathetic on the part of the Spanish though.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,793
0
0
well i think you cant ban him for one year however you fiddle with the rules, to me it looks like the spainards didnt want to ban him but thought they had to.. A year ban is accepting it was from the meat but I think you cant blame someone for eating meat in spain and not suspecting he might fail a drug test for it... so really they shouldn't have banned him at all, it's not like the italian guy who was eating the meat in china or mexico(whereever it was) where it is quite common for that to happen..

I think contador was doping and should have a 2year ban btw :S
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Altitude said:
Fortunately it won't matter. WADA will appeal and he'll be handed at least a year. Pretty pathetic on the part of the Spanish though.
For argument sake, lets say the Spanish drop hte year ban, and WADA appeal. While WADA are appealing, can he continue to race, like Valverde did until the CAS judgement came through?
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
joe1265 said:
I have one word for you - PLASTICIZERS
What you mean the test that has not been confirmed, was not validated at the time and has completely not been used as evidence?
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Arnout said:
Not even the slightest chance the defense is indeed solid (after all, its a free country and all that)?

Are you guys as cynical in real life as in the clinic?
Haven't you seen the WADA report? It slams AC in the most convincing possible fashion, not even using the plasticizers as an argument.
Then some scientists, all hired by AC and including the more than dubious De Boer, slam the WADA report.

Are you as naive in real life as in the clinic?
Ask yourself:

1. Why didn't AC file charges against the butcher?
2. Why didn't AC do a hairtest?
3. What are the odds of the positive falling on the second rest day?

I'm not even talking about the plasticizer test or the Humo article.
 
Oct 11, 2010
740
0
0
Arnout said:
Not even the slightest chance the defense is indeed solid (after all, its a free country and all that)?

Are you guys as cynical in real life as in the clinic?
That's not the point. Under WADA code an athlete is responsible for what turns up in a control. Even if he could prove it was steak (which he obviously cannot), he'd still get a year.
 
Oct 11, 2010
740
0
0
Digger said:
For argument sake, lets say the Spanish drop hte year ban, and WADA appeal. While WADA are appealing, can he continue to race, like Valverde did until the CAS judgement came through?
Aldirto is still provisionally suspended as far as I'm aware.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Altitude said:
That's not the point. Under WADA code an athlete is responsible for what turns up in a control. Even if he could prove it was steak (which he obviously cannot), he'd still get a year.
+1

Arnout said:
Are you guys as cynical in real life as in the clinic?
With such poor, biased decision making at the highest institutional levels, it is indeed tempting to become cynical.
 
Jun 9, 2010
1,862
0
0
I really want him clear of this charges... I want to see him racing!

Yes I'm a fanboy... so what?
 
Jul 4, 2009
338
0
0
sniper said:
Haven't you seen the WADA report? It slams AC in the most convincing possible fashion, not even using the plasticizers as an argument.
Then some scientists, all hired by AC and including the more than dubious De Boer, slam the WADA report.

Are you as naive in real life as in the clinic?
Ask yourself:

1. Why didn't AC file charges against the butcher?
2. Why didn't AC do a hairtest?
3. What are the odds of the positive falling on the second rest day?

I'm not even talking about the plasticizer test or the Humo article.
I have always wondered why there was not a hair test. A test of the other riders hair who ate the steak could have put him in the exact same spot as the German Ping Ponger.

Overall, I am not surprised by this step. RFEC bans, Conti appeals the RFEC in Spain, they overturn, next WADA and/or UCI takes it to CAS. I was always of the opinion this was going to end up at the CAS.
 
sniper said:
Haven't you seen the WADA report? It slams AC in the most convincing possible fashion, not even using the plasticizers as an argument.
Then some scientists, all hired by AC and including the more than dubious De Boer, slam the WADA report.

Are you as naive in real life as in the clinic?
Ask yourself:

1. Why didn't AC file charges against the butcher?
2. Why didn't AC do a hairtest?
3. What are the odds of the positive falling on the second rest day?

I'm not even talking about the plasticizer test or the Humo article.
Please elaborate why De Boer is more than dubious.

Regards
GJ
 
Dec 21, 2010
147
0
0
Off to CAS we go.

He'll get a year, regardless.

CAS might back date the ban to the Tour if they give him a year, means he could still ride the Vuelta.

Unless WADA/UCI can make the plasticisers stick, then his defence will in all likelihood (and this is just my opinion), stick at CAS.

Personally, i think he doped, and should get a 2 year ban. But it's more than conceivable that a year is all he will get.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
GJB123 said:
Please elaborate why De Boer is more than dubious.

Regards
GJ
Good question.
His reputation was addressed in some thread some time ago. As I recall, he stood by one or more doping-suspect athletes, claiming their innocence.
Another obvious fact that makes him suspicious and probably biassed is that he was recommended to AC by the UCI.
But there was more to it. Will try to look it up, or maybe somebody can help me out here.
 
Met de Versnelling said:
Off to CAS we go.

He'll get a year, regardless.

CAS might back date the ban to the Tour if they give him a year, means he could still ride the Vuelta.

Unless WADA/UCI can make the plasticisers stick, then his defence will in all likelihood (and this is just my opinion), stick at CAS.

Personally, i think he doped, and should get a 2 year ban. But it's more than conceivable that a year is all he will get.
My guess is that he did dope but not with Clen and that he is truly innocent on that count.

Regards
GJ
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
Exactly. Why do people keep bringing up that test?!? You can't test one guy but not everyone else.
For instance, cuz it helps you adding 1+1.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS