Conta-do over? Will ban be reversed?

[GJB123]

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.

If you find that, you will see that De Boer himself replied to that notion. He never defended anybody in whatever court. He is a scientist giving his scientific interpretation of the facts before him.

Regards
GJ

 

[Barrus]

For instance, cuz it helps you adding 1+1.

When we do not even know whether the test was really performed and what the real outcome was? Nor whether other people were tested?

Look I still say he did take a blood bag, but the plasticizer test is completely irrelevant for this case

 

[theswordsman]

#1 Contador hired DeBoer because he asked the UCI (when he still trusted them) to recommend someone. He's highly regarded as a top expert.

#2 Plasticizers. Fahey said in Paris just today that the test STILL isn't ready to be validated. And in the October 4 New York Times article, they realized from the unknown person not at liberty to talk about the matter that the alleged plasticizers were on July 20, a day when there was zero Clenbuterol. Contador has enough blood tests, including during the Tour, to show there was no manipulation. There was also no mention of plasticizers in the six hundred pages submitted by the UCI and WADA. It doesn't exist in the legal case.

#3 Contador DID file a complaint with the government. Repeat, he DID file a complaint. The Basque government used the tracking system the media tells us is foolproof, and were unable to find the right source. There's reason to believe it didn't pass through the normal chances. Their best of three guesses is it came from a place that was busted for Clenbuterol in 2000.

#4 Farmers are arrested in Spain every year for using Clenbuterol.

#5 A much too tiny percent of the animals are tested for Clenbuterol to have any statistical certainty.

#6 Biciciclismo had a link just this morning about a group of guys caught selling expired meat that had never been through the testing system, and had falsified markings. They're trying to track down the illegal slaughterhouse.

#7 A one year ban is the standard practice, unfortunately, when organizations like the Competition Committee agree that there's no chance the person cheated, or derived any performance enhancement, but Strict Liability requires they be punished anyway. A year of your career and a Tour de France is what they take away if they believe you.

#8. There is a provision in the codes of both WADA and the UCI for zero penalty under certain circumstances. The Competition Committee had already agreed that of the four options presented by the UCI, food contamination was the only possible reason. Contador then said that he believed, like so many of you here, that meat from Spain was completely safe. If he had eaten it anyway in Mexico or China where it's a recognized problem, then yes, he could be considered negligent. But eating a food source that many of you still think is perfect means he wasn't anymore negligent that you would be.

#9 The head of the Cologne Lab said a year and a half ago that there should be a minimum threshold for a Clenbuterol positive. Lots of other anti-doping scientists agree. Contador's legal team offered fifteen scientists a chance to build a case against him, and none could. It all comes down to a stupid rule called Strict Liability.

I'm not digging out the links of sources again. If you want documentation, look through my older posts and you'll see a zillion of them.

Edit: by the way, El Mundo has PDF copies of the Competition Committee's provisional document and the 36 page response by Contador's team. Also, I never ever come back to see what people have replied to me in a hostile environment like this.

 

[sniper]

My guess is that he did dope but not with Clen and that he is truly innocent on that count.

Regards
GJ

You thereby also say that the Humo article was made up?
How could a journalist, himself not an insider, make up such a story?

 

[roadiemtl]

I am utterly shocked!!!

The Sanish wanting their cheater to be able to cheat again. So shocking!

The lowlifes run the asylum in Spain.

Thank god for WADA, otherwise spanish cyclists would all be winners.

 

[LugHugger]

What you mean the test that has not been confirmed, was not validated at the time and has completely not been used as evidence?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, WADA will use the subsequently validated plasticizer test in their appeal and it will be heard as submisible evidence at CAS.

 

[sniper]

#1 Contador hired DeBoer because he asked the UCI (when he still trusted them) to recommend someone. He's highly regarded as a top expert.

#2 Plasticizers. Fahey said in Paris just today that the test STILL isn't ready to be validated. And in the October 4 New York Times article, they realized from the unknown person not at liberty to talk about the matter that the alleged plasticizers were on July 20, a day when there was zero Clenbuterol. Contador has enough blood tests, including during the Tour, to show there was no manipulation. There was also no mention of plasticizers in the six hundred pages submitted by the UCI and WADA. It doesn't exist in the legal case.

#3 Contador DID file a complaint with the government. Repeat, he DID file a complaint. The Basque government used the tracking system the media tells us is foolproof, and were unable to find the right source. There's reason to believe it didn't pass through the normal chances. Their best of three guesses is it came from a place that was busted for Clenbuterol in 2000.

#4 Farmers are arrested in Spain every year for using Clenbuterol.

#5 A much too tiny percent of the animals are tested for Clenbuterol to have any statistical certainty.

#6 Biciciclismo had a link just this morning about a group of guys caught selling expired meat that had never been through the testing system, and had falsified markings. They're trying to track down the illegal slaughterhouse.

#7 A one year ban is the standard practice, unfortunately, when organizations like the Competition Committee agree that there's no chance the person cheated, or derived any performance enhancement, but Strict Liability requires they be punished anyway. A year of your career and a Tour de France is what they take away if they believe you.

#8. There is a provision in the codes of both WADA and the UCI for zero penalty under certain circumstances. The Competition Committee had already agreed that of the four options presented by the UCI, food contamination was the only possible reason. Contador then said that he believed, like so many of you here, that meat from Spain was completely safe. If he had eaten it anyway in Mexico or China where it's a recognized problem, then yes, he could be considered negligent. But eating a food source that many of you still think is perfect means he wasn't anymore negligent that you would be.

#9 The head of the Cologne Lab said a year and a half ago that there should be a minimum threshold for a Clenbuterol positive. Lots of other anti-doping scientists agree. Contador's legal team offered fifteen scientists a chance to build a case against him, and none could. It all comes down to a stupid rule called Strict Liability.

I'm not digging out the links of sources again. If you want documentation, look through my older posts and you'll see a zillion of them.

Edit: by the way, El Mundo has PDF copies of the Competition Committee's provisional document and the 36 page response by Contador's team. Also, I never ever come back to see what people have replied to me in a hostile environment like this.

#4 What a surprise, then, that neither the butcher, nor the supplier, nor the supplier's supplier has ever been put in connection with Clenbuterol.

#9 As far as I've been able to understand, not one of these 15 scientists has been able to convincingly refute any of the arguments put forward by by WADA.

 

[GJB123]

You thereby also say that the Humo article was made up?
How could a journalist, himself not an insider, make up such a story?

It's easy, people do it here all the time. You should try it once.

Surely you are not suggesting that every story that gets out in the press is actually true? That would be the same as saying that very pro rider is clean. Are you really that naive?

Regards
GJ

 

[Mambo95]

#4 Farmers are arrested in Spain every year for using Clenbuterol.

Do you have a link to that? (A non-cycling related one). That would cast a different perspective on things for me. (I know there was one group in Tenerife)

 

[palmerq]

......

good post

 

[GJB123]

#4 What a surprise, then, that neither the butcher, nor the supplier, nor the supplier's supplier has ever been put in connection with Clenbuterol.

#9 As far as I've been able to understand, not one of these 15 scientists has been able to convincingly refute any of the arguments put forward by by WADA.

#4 What a surprise. They must be innocent then. Shall we apply the same rule to pro riders accused of doping?

#9 Back to strict liability then?

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

It's easy, people do it here all the time. You should try it once.

Surely you are not suggesting that every story that gets out in the press is actually true? That would be the same as saying that very pro rider is clean. Are you really that naive?

Regards
GJ

no, I'm not suggesting that. did you see me suggest that?
merely saying that the Humo story is a couple of picograms more plausible than AC's stake-tale.

That would be the same as saying that very pro rider is clean. Are you really that naive?

GJ

wat je zegt ben je zelf.

 

[GJB123]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10878&page=5

Sorry, the previous discussion I was alluding to was about Mr Faber when he was put in a less than flattering light on this forum. No surprise, I guess, that the culprit spouting the innuendo about him didn't bother to reply to Mr Faber's post.

Regards
GJ

 

[Barrus]

You thereby also say that the Humo article was made up?
How could a journalist, himself not an insider, make up such a story?

You mean the article that was not printed?

 

[GJB123]

no, I'm not suggesting that. did you see me suggest that?
merely saying that the Humo story is a couple of picograms more plausible than AC's stake-tale.

Did you get to review the entire file? I guess not. And please do explain why 15 scientists knowing the file and knowing a hell of a lot more than you and I about doping couldn't connect the dots, while you say anybody should be able to?

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

You mean the article that was not printed?

I mean the article that accounts for AC's clen positive in the most plausible of ways.

 

[GJB123]

I mean the article that accounts for AC's clen positive in the most plausible of ways.

Eaxctly the one that was never printed.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

Did you get to review the entire file? I guess not. And please do explain why 15 scientists knowing the file and knowing a hell of a lot more than you and I about doping couldn't connect the dots, while you say anybody should be able to?

Regards
GJ

dunno.
But I know that two to three times 15 scientists couldn't connect dots either when it came to deciding whether Armstrong has been doping.
Perhaps its a money-thing? just speculating.

 

[Barrus]

I mean the article that accounts for AC's clen positive in the most plausible of ways.

AS far as I know, with the exception of the blurb on the website nothing came of that article. Now if I am wrong, I would happily admit that, but I have read nothing else about the article.

 

[sniper]

AS far as I know, with the exception of the blurb on the website nothing came of that article. Now if I am wrong, I would happily admit that, but I have read nothing else about the article.

Not sure what you've been expecting to hear or read about it.
The article was received by the international press.
Its veracity has never been refuted in any press release afterwards.

 

[peloton]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, WADA will use the subsequently validated plasticizer test in their appeal and it will be heard as submisible evidence at CAS.

Sigh. The test is not validated, and won't be for some time.

 

[peloton]

You mean the article that was not printed?

touché...

well put.

 

[roadiemtl]

Where's the beef (receipt that is)

I remember back when this story first broke, ****ador said that he was innocent, and that the meat was the guilty one (the cow must have injected itself).

He said that food in France was inedible, and that he needed to order "beef" from a supplier in Spain.

Once this statement was made, he then said that "Astana has the receipt, he knows nothing more".

So if his "The meat did it" theory holds water, where is this receipt? certainly Astana must have produced it, and that would be proof that he got meat from Spain and it provides a somewhat plausible explanation right?

 

[peloton]

I remember back when this story first broke, ****ador said that he was innocent, and that the meat was the guilty one (the cow must have injected itself).

He said that food in France was inedible, and that he needed to order "beef" from a supplier in Spain.

Once this statement was made, he then said that "Astana has the receipt, he knows nothing more".

So if his "The meat did it" theory holds water, where is this receipt? certainly Astana must have produced it, and that would be proof that he got meat from Spain and it provides a somewhat plausible explanation right?

I suggest you do some reading, this thread will give you most of the answers.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

For instance, cuz it helps you adding 1+1.

Adding 1+1 doesn't do you any good if the answer isn't 2.

Yeah, I think he transfused, but you can't use the plasticizer test as a basis for giving him a ban.