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

Conta-do over? Will ban be reversed?

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 16, 2009
3,083
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Why did Valverde take his case to Switzerland? Thats right - because that is where CAS is based, Switzerland.
First off Valverde was railroaded.

Valverde was a ITA (Coni=NF/NOC) case, and as so dealt with (although illegally)
The dude kept peddling around outside ITA and the UCI (Int. Fed) under pressure took control over the case. The only place for Int. Federations to go is that institution designed for it Cas/Tas.

Dr. Maserati said:
Any appeal of the RFEC decision from either side is first heard through CAS - see you in Switzerland.
"Not Necessarily" therefore made that upperjudge this comment today, and defined the boundaries of legality for a ban at all.
No AC can forgo Cas/Tas as these institutions are unconstitutional and illegal and take it straight to any court within the EU and prevail.

Riis will be lucky this time around and have his goldfish for granted to survive, cause what now matters is that AC starts riding, basic laws are being upheld washed away by some sort of vermin in the name of sports.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
diotec, you occasionally post interesting information but i can see you being a little confused, may be a lot confused in fact.

contador did not sign his license with any European court !!

his racing license says: the court of last instance is cas, tas in spanish.

if contador wants to race, that is have a licence, he has to go to cas.

i hope you confused yourself and stop confusing others.

contador has the right to go to any european or spanish court for any other reason. but bike racing route leads to a mountain top finish at cas.
 
Mar 12, 2009
1,934
0
0
sniper said:
A short piece in Spanish, based on a German press release (DPA).
Nothing we didn't know yet, but still interesting:
http://www.elpais.cr/articulos.php?id=41097

- Noting that the comparison of Ovtcharov's with AC's case doesn't work.

- About the fact that Ovtcharov did a hairtest, AC didn'T.

- About the fact that AC has "a past", Ovtcharov doesn't.

- (If I understood correcly) Ovtcharov calls AC corrupt, but provides no further comments on AC's case.
1. How come? Ovtcharov had more clen in him than Contador

2. Do we know Contador didn't have a hair test?

3. "A past" means what? I'm fairly sure we can lump 70% of the current riders with "a past".

4. Why does he call AC corrupt, has he met him or does he know something we don't?

more details please.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Allright, even though this field of law certainly is not my main area of expertise I have taken it up me to try and understand the position of Daotec and understand what he is talking about.

Please for everyone not wanting to read the entire legal thing I am about to write here is the short of it. The case which I believe Daotec is referring to does allow for anti-doping measures to be taken and states even particularly that these are not contrary to European Union law.

Now for those who do want to know more, here is my attempt to explain it.

Quite recently a decision has been rendered by the European Court of Justice, it was an appeal to a case in which the case of the applicants, sporters who had been banned, was thrown out stating that Sporting rules could not be contrary to European Union law, seeing as these rules need not be compatible with European Union rules, seeing as this was not part of the common market. At least, that is the short of it.

The decision itself can be found here:
summary
the entire judgment

The two swimmers appealed to the Grand Chamber. It was here that the Court stated that sporting events and thus sporting and anti-doping rules did not solely concern sport, but had economic effects as well and as such these rules needed to seen as being under art. 39 and 40 EC. Thus being under the common market and needed to confirm to regulation. HOWEVER there is a subsequent reasoning in this decision that is very important, especially in the Contador case:

45 Therefore, even if the anti-doping rules at issue are to be regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings limiting the appellants’ freedom of action, they do not, for all that, necessarily constitute a restriction of competition incompatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 81 EC, since they are justified by a legitimate objective. Such a limitation is inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of competitive sport and its very purpose is to ensure healthy rivalry between athletes.

46 While the appellants do not dispute the truth of this objective, they nevertheless contend that the anti-doping rules at issue are also intended to protect the IOC’s own economic interests and that it is in order to safeguard this objective that excessive rules, such as those contested in the present case, are adopted. The latter cannot therefore, in their submission, be regarded as inherent in the proper conduct of competitive sport and fall outside the prohibitions in Article 81 EC.

47 It must be acknowledged that the penal nature of the anti-doping rules at issue and the magnitude of the penalties applicable if they are breached are capable of producing adverse effects on competition because they could, if penalties were ultimately to prove unjustified, result in an athlete’s unwarranted exclusion from sporting events, and thus in impairment of the conditions under which the activity at issue is engaged in. It follows that, in order not to be covered by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, the restrictions thus imposed by those rules must be limited to what is necessary to ensure the proper conduct of competitive sport (see, to this effect, DLG, paragraph 35).

48 Rules of that kind could indeed prove excessive by virtue of, first, the conditions laid down for establishing the dividing line between circumstances which amount to doping in respect of which penalties may be imposed and those which do not, and second, the severity of those penalties.

49 Here, that dividing line is determined in the anti-doping rules at issue by the threshold of 2 ng/ml of urine above which the presence of Nandrolone in an athlete’s body constitutes doping. The appellants contest that rule, asserting that the threshold adopted is set at an excessively low level which is not founded on any scientifically safe criterion.

50 However, the appellants fail to establish that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that rule to be justified.

51 It is common ground that Nandrolone is an anabolic substance the presence of which in athletes’ bodies is liable to improve their performance and compromise the fairness of the sporting events in which they participate. The ban on that substance is accordingly in principle justified in light of the objective of anti-doping rules.

52 It is also common ground that that substance may be produced endogenously and that, in order to take account of this phenomenon, sporting bodies, including the IOC by means of the anti-doping rules at issue, have accepted that doping is considered to have occurred only where the substance is present in an amount exceeding a certain threshold. It is therefore only if, having regard to scientific knowledge as it stood when the anti-doping rules at issue were adopted or even when they were applied to punish the appellants, in 1999, the threshold is set at such a low level that it should be regarded as not taking sufficient account of this phenomenon that those rules should be regarded as not justified in light of the objective which they were intended to achieve.

53 It is apparent from the documents before the Court that at the material time the average endogenous production observed in all studies then published was 20 times lower than 2ng/ml of urine and that the maximum endogenous production value observed was nearly a third lower. While the appellants contend that, from 1993, the IOC could not have been unaware of the risk reported by an expert that merely consuming a limited quantity of boar meat could cause entirely innocent athletes to exceed the threshold in question, it is not in any event established that at the material time this risk had been confirmed by the majority of the scientific community. Moreover, the results of the studies and the experiments carried out on this point subsequent to the decision at issue have no bearing in any event on the legality of that decision.

54 In those circumstances, and as the appellants do not specify at what level the threshold in question should have been set at the material time, it does not appear that the restrictions which that threshold imposes on professional sportsmen go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure that sporting events take place and function properly.

55 Since the appellants have, moreover, not pleaded that the penalties which were applicable and were imposed in the present case are excessive, it has not been established that the anti-doping rules at issue are disproportionate.

56 Accordingly, the second plea must be dismissed.
Simply put, if at the time of the punishment the punishing authority and those in charge of the document on which the ban is based, did not have any reason to assume that the natural body could itself create such a level of a substance, or that contamination is to have likely occured at the time or that the scientific community is of the opinion that this can happen, there is no reason that the ban would be contrary to European Competition laws. In the case of Contador the fact that much of the scientific community states that such contamination is extremely unlikely in the European Union, almost astronomically small would ensure that the ban would stand, or at most be seen as excessive.

Appeal Case:
summary
complete judgment
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
Barrus said:
Python you are not completely correct
.....
snip
i never claimed to be a legal expert or that the evidence against contador is 100% damming.

on the contarary, i consistently appealed to open-minded, unhurried evaluation of still limited facts and the understanding of the rule limits within which contador's case should be viewed.

my post above that you termed 'not completely correct' only referred to contador's racing ability if he wants to bypass cas.

i believe it's 100% correct to say he wont race in 2011 and perhaps in 2012 if, provided he's not fully acquitted, he decides to bypass cas.

it's simply not clear how any european court, regardless of any case's merits, can compel the uci to give contador's racing license if the uci's own chapter says - cas is their only last instance.

again, the focus is on compelling a sporting body and the ability to race as soon as possible, not the athletes rights, wrongs or a sporting bodies long term changes of policy.

besides, as a said many times, i'm far from convinced, that it's a given that cas will rule against contador - both in the foot steps of ovcharov's unprecedented acquittal and the inherent, specific facts of contador's circumstances.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
python said:
i never claimed to be a legal expert or that the evidence against contador is 100% damming.

on the contarary, i consistently appealed to open-minded, unhurried evaluation of still limited facts and the understanding of the rule limits within which contador's case should be viewed.

my post above that you termed 'not completely correct' only referred to contador's racing ability if he wants to bypass cas.

i believe it's 100% correct to say he wont race in 2011 and perhaps in 2012 if, provided he's not fully acquitted, he decides to bypass cas.

it's simply not clear how any european court, regardless of any case's merits, can compel the uci to give contador's racing license if the uci's own chapter says - cas is their only last instance.

again, the focus is on compelling a sporting body and the ability to race as soon as possible, not the athletes rights, wrongs or a sporting bodies long term changes of policy.

besides, as a said many times, i'm far from convinced, that it's given cas will rule against contador - both in the foot steps of ovcharov's unprecedented acquittal and the inherent, specific facts of contador's circumstances.
Oh if you just mean the ability to race, I completely agree with you on that, the ECJ could only ensure that Contie could possibly get a pay out of sorts.

I was just trying to make some sense out of Daotec and after I made the post I saw your post and had not understood that you were solely concerned with the ability to ride aspect:p

I'll take your name out and just leave it as a point against Doatec
 
Dec 7, 2010
4,453
0
0
Can we, more or less, reduce that to the following?
Barrus said:
Simply put...the ban would stand, or at most be seen as excessive.
And that "as excessive" part would seem to be simply a matter of opinion and not have any real bearing on...anything. Correct?

So, Barrus, what do you believe is going to be the final outcome here?
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
DAOTEC said:
First off Valverde was railroaded.

Valverde was a ITA (Coni=NF/NOC) case, and as so dealt with (although illegally)
The dude kept peddling around outside ITA and the UCI (Int. Fed) under pressure took control over the case. The only place for Int. Federations to go is that institution designed for it Cas/Tas.
Read the CAS verdict on Valverde - there was nothing illegal about how the Italians handled the case which is why they upheld the Italian decison.


DAOTEC said:
"Not Necessarily" therefore made that upperjudge this comment today, and defined the boundaries of legality for a ban at all.
No AC can forgo Cas/Tas as these institutions are unconstitutional and illegal and take it straight to any court within the EU and prevail.

Riis will be lucky this time around and have his goldfish for granted to survive, cause what now matters is that AC starts riding, basic laws are being upheld washed away by some sort of vermin in the name of sports.
Check your licence - when you sign it you accept the rules of the UCI.
Any appeal goes through CAS - which has been recognised as being a competent authority to have juristriction for sport.


If Valverdes case was as you say illegal - then why and how did he get banned?

Valverde did try and appeal the CAS verdict - which was rejected bythe Swiss Federal Tribunal and the Swiss Supreme Court.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
You really are just trying to obfuscate everything, ey? Why don't you try to adress the point I made about the legal aspects of doping.

Also the EU does not really have legal personality

This requires the domestic court of an EU member state to interpret all national laws in the light of EU directives, even if the law in question was not based on the directive.
This has nothing to do with legal personality but with the fact that European Community law is Supranational law. And this is also not right, laws need to be interpreted in the light of directives in the case that the directive deals with the same issue and this directive has gone into force, without it being integrated in the domestic legal system.

This is an important phenomenon that gives individuals the power to claim rights conferred directly by EU laws, treaties, regulations, decisions and directives (after their effective date) even if their member states have failed to introduce them into domestic law, or have not implemented them correctly. These rights may be claimed by an individual in relation to the state and related public bodies, or in relation to another individual because they are also subject to the same overarching framework of EU laws and rules.
Again nothing concerning the legal personality, whether the EU has that or not, has anything to do with this, it is the fact that it is supranational law. It comes from the Costa/ENEL case. But doping rules in themselves are not contrary to European Union Law, as Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission clearly states

Cas/Tas and their christmas tree confidants like WADA/NADO's etc. are solely designed for arbitrary purpose, expanded to some kind of pseudo court that can rob indivuduels from their basic rights (& human)
European Community law in itself is not concerned with human rights and these courts have withstood the test of the courts and are even endorsed by the European Commission, who even aided in the creation of WADA
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Granville57 said:
Can we, more or less, reduce that to the following?


And that "as excessive" part would seem to be simply a matter of opinion and not have any real bearing on...anything. Correct?

So, Barrus, what do you believe is going to be the final outcome here?
The excessive part could be reasoned and could have a real bearing on whether Contador might get some form of pay off out of it, but not on whether he can race or not.

My own opinion: I do not know. I don't know the case, I don't know Contador (or more likely his lawyers) tactics and I do not know what the decision of CAS will be.
The latter is probably the only decision that is of real concern as to whether he can ride.
As far as the ECJ is concerned, Contador will probably not have any decision that is favourable for him at the ECJ, if the case is even admitted at all.

Also please, no-one take my word on this here as gospel, read the cases for yourself, draw your own conclusion, because as I said it is not my area of expertise. Yet I at least have something to base what I say on, unlike Daotec
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,083
0
0
Barrus said:
You really are just trying to obfuscate everything, ey?
No I don't, time will tell and it won't take long anymore, but if you can't stand the heat Barrus you have to get out of this kitchen, cause the thing is about to collapse ... (no smiley no)

Barrus said:
Why don't you try to adress the point I made about the legal aspects of doping.
There is no need for that, cause that is non existent my dear friend, and I swear that's The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth! So Help Me God!
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
DAOTEC said:
That is why Susan ...

don't know from what planet python is from, but it can't be European ...

Hey python ever heard of a Law "each member has to comply with EU Rights Labour Constitution"
<snipped>
Europe is not a planet.
 
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Really, Daotec the way you manhandle legal reasoning makes me want to come over to you and smack you in the back of the head
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
DAOTEC said:
That is why Susan ...

don't know from what planet python is from, but it can't be European ...

snip
.
i'm going to untangle another grand confusion you have wrapped yourself in - i'm as european as they come. just wider circulated than you.

that's all your grand ignorance is entitled to and needs to adsorb.

check the facts. if contador behaves as stupidly as you want him too, he'll end up with the egg on his face, you have just earned.

i hope, he's advised better.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,083
0
0
Barrus said:
Really, Daotec the way you manhandle legal reasoning makes me want to come over to you and smack you in the back of the head


DAOTEC said:
don't know from what planet python is from, but it can't be European ...
python said:
i'm going to untangle another 1]grand confusion you have wrapped yourself in - i'm as european as they come. just 2]wider circulated than you.
Catch 22


Oh dear, oh dear, I hope you didn't for a second think¿ → [Wiki-Python] → 2 become 1


python said:
check the facts. if contador behaves as stupidly as you want him too, he'll end up with the egg on his face, you have just earned.

i hope, he's advised better.
No-egg-No, Berto will ride, and thanks for your hope, always appreciated gracias
 
Jun 16, 2009
853
0
0
I am not a lawyer, i however come from a long line of lawyers i can tell you this unequivocally, the law can be interpreted in any fashion depending on the person sitting in judgement. There are judgements that make no sense to either to either a lay person or a lawyer. that is the way it works.
Looking at what has been written here, one side is pretty logical and by all appearances seem to have law and common sense on their side. the other side at first glance seems to be just a pest. Not directly disputing arguments, offering talking points in a roundabout fashion, relying on assumptions to be made by the opposing parties. I have seen this everyday of my life. It seems pointless however sometimes it works. You just talk in circles and wait for the other side to make a mistake. Its not trolling, its just what lawyers do. You can't disprove someone who doesn't present a case.

Now to illustrate the law and the way it can be twisted. In the US a corporation is a seperate entity, much like a person. If you do much research there are alot of reasons why this is so, for one if it is not a seperate entity every stockholder and persona with any interest in the corporation would be potentially liable for actions taken by the corporation. That would destroy the financial structure of our country.
However recent judgements have held people in positions of responsibilty in said corporations liable for damages caused by the corporation.
Whether you agree or not it creates a slippery slope that did not exist before.
It is not whether it seems logical to hold people responsible for their actions, it is about the way the law is constructed and for what reason is was done that way.
Irregardless of the law, judgements were made and justified by a member of the judiciary. Now there is precedent for similar judgements.
So whether or not the law supports cycling or Contador is really irrelevant, it is all fair game in the hands of a judge regardless of what the law reads.

in addition i would like to mention once again that veal, is defined by carcass size approx 400 lbs or less. The size of the veal purchased by AC is not possible to come from veal, only a full grown beef carcass.
AC contends they purchased one cut of meat that was over 7 lbs, which was then cut further prepared and consumed over several days.
the largest amount you could get from a veal carcass would be less than half of what was purchased.
 
Dec 21, 2010
450
0
0
runninboy said:
And finally the size of the cut of meat as it was reported would be rather large from a veal calf. it was reported to be 3.2 kilos that is 7 lbs
for comparison
a full sized BEEF CARCASS 1000+ lbs yields only 8 lbs of sirloin "solomillo"

a carcass in order to be veal has to weigh 396 lbs or less

that is less than half the size of a typical beef carcass

How do you get a 7 lb cut of meat from an animal that is half the size of animal needed to produce such a cut.
Impossible, sorry someone is telling a whooper here(pun intended)
Fully agree on the issue of the weight of "vealers" in Spain - somewhere earlier it was mentioned that for slaughter as "Ternera" or "Veal", the animal was to be in the order of 300+kg..... For a bull to be used in bull-fighting they must weight more than 320kg, most are weighed at 340-370kg, and they are no damned vealers!!!! Fully mature, mad as hell, testosterone-charged, mobile steak-burgers.....

I live near Madrid, and when I buy a full Solomillo, usual weight is 2.6 - 2.9kg, it is "Buey", which translates to Bullock or Steer - a far cry from a vealer, whose age is normally 10-14 months at slaughter. I asked my local butcher for "Ternera Solomillo", the ones he showed me only tipped the scales at 1.9-2.2kg - when asked if he had seen a 3kg Ternera Solomillo, he just laughed.

The translations of veal and beef, and the different cuts of meats are getting all screwed up in this thread. The various reports & subsequent translation attempts give a very confusing picture, lets wait and see what the outcome is.

BTW, Buey Solomillo is REALLY NICE, I don't blame Bertie at all for wanting a piece on the rest day, clen-filled or not......
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
GreasyMonkey said:
Fully agree on the issue of the weight of "vealers" in Spain - somewhere earlier it was mentioned snip for brevity
(mods this may technically be offtopic, act as you feel fit, i'm just trying to connect two important issues)

this issue (the type and size of the meat cut) was already discussed in another thread. it may prove very significant. it essentially boils down to whether contador and about 10 other potential co-conspirators (from various organizations and countries) blatantly lied about the steak and the receipt was forged… or it was indeed purchased in irun (clen-free or not) and cooked as claimed.

to rehash…iIt started with my request to assist in translating a passage from an article posted by beach mtn http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=429928&postcount=371

after several attempts it was clarified by hrotha and parullo and further interpreted by me (with some blanks filled in) http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=430005&postcount=374
‘because of the eu trading laws, the 3. 232 kilogram ‘solomillo’ steak purchased in irun by cerrón at the request of astana chef Paco Olalla, was traceable through a purchase receipt cerron previously submitted to astana officials. (not in the text: that’s the vacuum packed ‘solomillo’ steak prepared by paco in the team bus kitchen and consumed by contador and his 4 Spanish team mates on the 20th july)..‘so, we thought we identified the very animal that donated the contaminated steak, but the farmer told us that could not be the case because the ‘solomillo’ steak he typically cut out of the carcass of his 300-kilo calves (and retailed in irun butcher shop) would normally weigh 2.5 kilogram.’

running boy then chimes in as to why clebuterol can theoretically be found in veal
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=430317&postcount=378

either contador invented the steak story or it's true giving his defence some (still limited) mileage to run on.

we'll see tomorrow.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS