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

Conta-do over? Will ban be reversed?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 30, 2010
653
0
0
Who wants to know the truth ?

I posted a thread a while back, asking "who wants to know the truth ?".

This thread makes it painfully obvious who that is.


The side that uses technicalities
"the plasticizer test is not yet official",

and legalities
"you have to prove that contador didn't consume tainted meat, or he must be considered innocent"

are for all intents and purposes are defending someone that they believe is a cheater, and thief and a liar (some of the defenders - ie Berezin - even admit this). Their only defence is the morally ambiguous "they all do it, so it evens out".

The results of the poll "who wants to know the truth" were as you would expect, overwhelming in favour of the "accusers", and this thread proves it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Berzin said:
I for one am hoping the ban is lifted.

I want Contador to keep his 2010 Tour title and be able to defend it again this year.

His transgression was way too minor for all the drama that has ensued over it.

Time to put it behind us and let the racing begin.

Alberto has learned two lessons from this-

1) Store the to-be-transfused blood in a bottle and not plastic, and...

2)...have the blood checked for stuff like clenbutarol and anything else he may be ingesting when having blood taken out.
hrotha said:
How can you say his transgression was minor when you acknowledge it was probably a transfusion?
Because they cant ban someone on a probability and a test that has not yet been verified. All they can do is ban on the evidence they have which is the clenbuterol.

I say lift the ban, let him ride, verify the plasticiser test, and then retro test all of last years samples, and ban him properly. (along with a few others).
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
TeamSkyFans said:
Because they cant ban someone on a probability and a test that has not yet been verified. All they can do is ban on the evidence they have which is the clenbuterol.

I say lift the ban, let him ride, verify the plasticiser test, and then retro test all of last years samples, and ban him properly. (along with a few others).
a big fat +1, but I strongly doubt whether the UCI has the drive and the guts to push this through.

The saddest observations are that AC's team gets away with
1. pointing out that his bloodpassport is clean, whereas everybody here in the CLINIC knows how they can dope without messing up the bloodpassport;
2. constantly stressing that the minimal amount could never have been performance enhancing, whereas everybody in the CLINIC agrees that that's irrelevant if a bloodtransfusion caused the positive.

AC's lawyers are of course doin a good job, I'm not blaming them, but it's sad that the Spanish media so uncritically take over what AC's lawyers spout.
 
Aug 9, 2010
444
0
0
Andynonomous said:
I posted a thread a while back, asking "who wants to know the truth ?".

This thread makes it painfully obvious who that is.


The side that uses technicalities
"the plasticizer test is not yet official",
That isn't a technicality, it's a fact. If you were tested then there's a pretty good chance that you would also show up with plasticisers in your system. Until the test can accurately identify the source, you can't use it. That's not a weaselly technicality, it's ensuring that the science used in testing is robust, fair and (so far as it can be) beyond argument.

The 'truth' depends on the available evidence, not on an assumption.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
Because they cant ban someone on a probability and a test that has not yet been verified. All they can do is ban on the evidence they have which is the clenbuterol.

I say lift the ban, let him ride, verify the plasticiser test, and then retro test all of last years samples, and ban him properly. (along with a few others).
That would be one of the best ideas, however I doubt we would have any GT contenders left in that case :p

Also does anyone know for certain whether it was confirmed somewhere official that it was Contadors profile? I believe it was, but it would be interesting to see how the officials reacted to the "rumour"
 
Jun 22, 2009
765
0
0
Andynonomous said:
I posted a thread a while back, asking "who wants to know the truth ?".

This thread makes it painfully obvious who that is.


The side that uses technicalities
"the plasticizer test is not yet official",

and legalities
"you have to prove that contador didn't consume tainted meat, or he must be considered innocent"

are for all intents and purposes are defending someone that they believe is a cheater, and thief and a liar (some of the defenders - ie Berezin - even admit this). Their only defence is the morally ambiguous "they all do it, so it evens out".

The results of the poll "who wants to know the truth" were as you would expect, overwhelming in favour of the "accusers", and this thread proves it.
i mostly agree but i think it's the selective application of technicalities that is most important. it's one thing to adhere to rules in a rigid manner and it's something else entirely to stop and start applying them where it's convenient for you.
 
Apr 18, 2009
10
0
0
Even the president of Spain says he's innocent.

It must be true then, we know that politicians never lie.

By the way, anyone interested in a bridge in NYC from me? priced to sell!!!
 
Jun 22, 2009
765
0
0
roadiemtl said:
Even the president of Spain says he's innocent.

It must be true then, we know that politicians never lie.

By the way, anyone interested in a bridge in NYC from me? priced to sell!!!
that may seem to have some truth to it but bashing an entire country based upon the actions of a few is ill advised. (FWIW i'm not even 1% Spanish)
 
roadiemtl said:
Even the president of Spain says he's innocent.

It must be true then, we know that politicians never lie.

By the way, anyone interested in a bridge in NYC from me? priced to sell!!!
A few posts have now reffered to Zapatero as the president. He is not the president he is the Prime minister.

I know its pedantic but to me it sticks out like mountain in the TOC. there is a BIG difference.
 
TeamSkyFans said:
Because they cant ban someone on a probability and a test that has not yet been verified. All they can do is ban on the evidence they have which is the clenbuterol.

I say lift the ban, let him ride, verify the plasticiser test, and then retro test all of last years samples, and ban him properly. (along with a few others).
+1 on this. Of course the peloton would be considerably smaller for a couple of years, but your suggestion is a very viable one IMO.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
lean said:
that may seem to have some truth to it but bashing an entire country based upon the actions of a few is ill advised. (FWIW i'm not even 1% Spanish)
I need to agree with this and state that if people continue to make these type of comments that there will be consequences
 
The Hitch said:
A few posts have now reffered to Zapatero as the president. He is not the president he is the Prime minister.

I know its pedantic but to me it sticks out like mountain in the TOC. there is a BIG difference.
It's a language thing. Zapatero's title in Spanish is presidente del Gobierno (correct me if i'm wrong).
 
roundabout said:
It's a language thing. Zapatero's title in Spanish is presidente del Gobierno (correct me if i'm wrong).
The President of the government (as it is said in Spanish) is not the president of the country. 2 very very different things

When said in English, its not the president but the prime minister.

It would be like calling Pat Mcquaid the president of ireland because hes irish and hes a president ;)
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,926
0
0
hrotha said:
How can you say his transgression was minor when you acknowledge it was probably a transfusion?
Because...

1) There is no proof of a transfusion, only conjecture from people who really can't say for certain what happened. They can only give probabilities. These probabilities make sense once put together but are not enough to convict. The science behind the testing procedures has to be 100% without a doubt.

2) Think of how stupid the UCI is for allowing an unapproved test for plasticizers to become part of the testing protocol. If the test isn't 100% airtight, all you are doing is muddying the waters.

The science has to be airtight. If not, whatever result you get cannot be taken into consideration because IT WILL BE SUCCESSFULLY ATTACKED IN COURT BY CONTADOR'S LAWYERS.

3) I see the absurdity in all this, and if Contador were to go down it should be for what could be proven without a shadow of a doubt, not because of any pseudo-scientific conjecture over a ridiculously low and non-performance-enhancing level of a substance that appeared in his system.

Any wonder why people doubt the validity and fairness of these drug positives? Let's get the science right. It's the only way to move forward on this issue.
 
The Hitch said:
A few posts have now reffered to Zapatero as the president. He is not the president he is the Prime minister.

I know its pedantic but to me it sticks out like mountain in the TOC. there is a BIG difference.
He's the presidente. We don't have a primer ministro. Now, how you render that in a language which uses a different political system is a matter of preference. You can adapt it as presidente = prime minister, but that's not necessarily a perfect solution, especially in an international context. Personally I prefer to say presidente = president and expect the audience to know Spain doesn't have the same political system as the UK. Unless you'd want to call Obama the prime minister of the US when talking in British English.
 
Apr 1, 2010
459
0
0
I see a Valverde situation coming... Conti gets released to ride by Spanish Fed, rides until CAS ban him for 2 years (which they would probably do either way).

My question is why have the riders punishment come from their country? Seem like a major conflict of interest. (Spain is getting the heat lately, but it's a conflict of interest for any country, including my own and our current major investigation) Why not just have a UCI/WADA panel (international would be best) that gives sanctions?

I mean... Its the UCI's sport, right? American Football (NFL) sanctions its own players (Edit: Not speaking specifically to drugs here, but their ability to sanction players), Why doesn't UCI?
 
Jun 16, 2009
853
0
0
Chuffy said:
That isn't a technicality, it's a fact. If you were tested then there's a pretty good chance that you would also show up with plasticisers in your system. Until the test can accurately identify the source, you can't use it. That's not a weaselly technicality, it's ensuring that the science used in testing is robust, fair and (so far as it can be) beyond argument.

The 'truth' depends on the available evidence, not on an assumption.
I like the way you think, good solid evidence.
So the evidence is AC had clenbuterol in his system which is a violation.
And in his defense he has presented only assumptions.
the meat "might" have been tainted, the meat was consumed so we have no evidence of it being tainted, sorry.
The meat "might" have been the source of contamination, but only if we can eliminate all other possiblities, oh sorry, we also don't have any available evidence that would do that either. How do you not prove a blood transfusion again?
:D

So the facts prove AC is guilty as he has proved nothing to the contrary.
 
Apr 1, 2010
459
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
LOL. No, wait, Bwahahaha!!

American sports sanctioning somebody for drugs? That's funny, right there. American football and baseball have to be two of the dirtiest sports on the planet.
I wasn't specifically meaning sanctions for drugs, merely for misconduct(editted previous comment). Agreed that those sports aren't the cleanest.
 
hrotha said:
He's the presidente. We don't have a primer ministro. Now, how you render that in a language which uses a different political system is a matter of preference. You can adapt it as presidente = prime minister, but that's not necessarily a perfect solution, especially in an international context. Personally I prefer to say presidente = president and expect the audience to know Spain doesn't have the same political system as the UK. Unless you'd want to call Obama the prime minister of the US when talking in British English.
In Spanish he may be presidente but in english his position is one of Prime Minister.

A President is the head of a state. Since King Juan Carlos is the head of state Zapatero is not the president.

A Prime minister is usually the head of the leading party in parliament ( how Zapatero got the role) and is appointed by the head of state (again, if the shoe fits).

So in English Zapatero is the Prime Minister of Spain, even if in similar languages he is called the President.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
Barrus said:
Also does anyone know for certain whether it was confirmed somewhere official that it was Contadors profile?
i have read most if not all official statements of the competent agencies/bodies responsible for contador's case -the uci, wada, rfec - none have officially confirmed that the placticizer test was indeed applied to contador. there were general statements by wada's people about the tests applicability to adjudication but none of the official interviews or press releases confirmed the initial german report.

there is also no single mention of plasticizers in the recently leaked 32-page document of the rfec disciplinary committee though there is plenty, again without the specific appendices, about his blood passport profile.
 
Jun 22, 2009
765
0
0
Rocksteady said:
I wasn't specifically meaning sanctions for drugs, merely for misconduct(editted previous comment). Agreed that those sports aren't the cleanest.
the point is, making the UCI responsible doesn't remove conflicts of interest, a more objective and independent 3rd party should be sanctioning athletes. this has been suggested many many times.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS