ContadorÂ’s legal team hit back at WADA report

[Dr. Maserati]

No, of course it doesn't! One is in charge of the testing protocols and the other sanctions the majority of the professional cycling events... Merely circumstantial I'd say. .

So - again, you cannot say who it is that has it in for Contador.... WADA, UCI...who?
Also - you do realize the Cologne lab is a WADA accredited lab - they are not employees of WADA.

Because it is not WADA's job to make positive tests public. At the very least, the should let Alberto do the talking. Or the UCI. It's as if Obama's addresses all of a sudden are leaked to the National Enquirer.

WADA/UCI/Nazi Frogmen didn't make the positive public - Alberto did.

I don't have any information on amounts. Like I said to you, if you want to know now much money exchanged hands all you have to do is call the German journalist who got the story and ask him how much he/she paid.

Again - why would I "call the German journalist"? It is you, not them that insists someone (we are still awaiting who) gets "paid for positive tests".

Precisely. It would be foolhardy to think that they do not manipulate positives to their benefit. Yes, in this case they kept news of Alberto's positive under wraps, and that's also wrong.

Riiight - so, the UCI decided to "manipulate a positive" on poor Alberto - so they can now come out and try and standby Albertos story and make themselves look incompetent and idiotic?

For the umpteenth time, I didn't even know who Fuyu Li was! What is wrong with you?

I don't speak for the saving of the Amazon forest, stopping the slaughter of the humpback whale, saving Tibet, et cetera; that does not mean I oppose those things. It takes a certain type of individual to understand otherwise.

Aha, so this is not some miscarriage of justice you feel a need to address - it is limited to Contador, even though you acknowledge AC has a 'positive' he is the victim of 'character assassination'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Let me ask you something: Do the labs get the samples with the person's name all over the container, or is it just a code?

Just the code - so it would be difficult to "manipulate a positive" as you suggest.

But when there is a positive A sample the athlete is entitled to request an examination of the B sample - which is what AC did.
The athlete, their legal and scientific representation are allowed attend the analysis of the B sample, so at that point the athletes name would become apparent to the staff at the lab.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And as far as the "characted assassination" claim goes... listen to Alberto's inverview in http://www.gazzetta.it and his answer to the question of him being treated fairly by the media, to which he said:"No, not at all. I've been a victim of a very intense campaign with no other goal but to calumny, vilify and slander Alberto Contador".

Straight from the mouth of the lion.

Ok - but I thought you were suggesting that the "character assassination" was coming from UCI/WADA/Nazi Frogmen (or women) ...... but in this post you say its the media.

Again - how are "they" assassinating his character when anything reported so far appears to be true?

 

[Señor_Contador]

So - again, you cannot say who it is that has it in for Contador.... WADA, UCI...who?

That is inconsequential. The fact that I cannot pinpoint the person/persons within WADA or the UCI or the labs does not mean the ones who have it for AC are not within WADA, the UCI or the labs. I honestly believe the labs had nothing to do with it.

My understanding is that the cyclist's samples the labs get have only a coded number bar attached to them (no personal data), and the only ones who know what rider corresponds to what code are the WADA personnel.

Hence the ones who had it in for Alberto, IMO, are either in WADA or the UCI.

Also - you do realize the Cologne lab is a WADA accredited lab - they are not employees of WADA.

So? I'm not blaming them. I'm blaming WADA. Are you insinuating that the ones most likely to have leaked the story IYO are employees of the Cologne lab?

WADA/UCI/Nazi Frogmen didn't make the positive public - Alberto did.

But you already know that he made it public because the German media were about to come out with the story. I suspect you already knew this so I really do not unders... *** edited by mod ***

In this case, if you're looking to allocate indignation approppriately I would say that finding out who leaked the story to the German media would raise similar disgust on your part but... you seem to be Ok with someone who broke the very same rules you are grilling Alberto for. Double standards perhaps?

Again - why would I "call the German journalist"? It is you, not them that insists someone (we are still awaiting who) gets "paid for positive tests".

I said "by the positive", not "paid for positive tests". And yes, knowing how many positives have misteriously found their way to the media in the past few years... why isn't this put under the microscope? Who is doing the leaking? I mean, it's against the rules too. Either we implement the rules ALL the time to EVERYONE, or we don't.

Riiight - so, the UCI decided to "manipulate a positive" on poor Alberto - so they can now come out and try and standby Albertos story and make themselves look incompetent and idiotic?

When Alberto came out and announced that he had tested positive I was also a little hesitant in blaming the UCI, but weeks later, when McQuaid made the famous remark or Spain having a "doping problem"... it kinda made me think. It's like kicking a man when he's down. Aside from the fact that I've never heard McQuaid saying that the US has a doping problem (and the US has had a "pornographic" love affair with doping mind you)... if you really put the quote in perspective... it sounds to me like backstabber's guilt. Yes, they were trying to keep the positive out of the public eye but... something happened within WADA/the UCI and the way they approached the case. I believe that once WADA found out that McQuaid's opinion was in line with theirs... it was game over. Soon after the plasticizers pseudo-positive came out and the hunt was on.

Aha, so this is not some miscarriage of justice you feel a need to address.

No, not really. I choose what to defend and what not to defend. Now, just because I haven't gotten on the side of the Fuyu Li's defenders has more to do with sheer ignorance of the case than me actively wanting to avoid an injustice. Like I said, just because I don't speak for something does not mean I'm against it. *** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That is inconsequential. The fact that I cannot pinpoint the person/persons within WADA or the UCI or the labs does not mean the ones who have it for AC are not within WADA, the UCI or the labs. I honestly believe the labs had nothing to do with it.

My understanding is that the cyclist's samples the labs get have only a coded number bar attached to them (no personal data), and the only ones who know what rider corresponds to what code are the WADA personnel.

Hence the ones who had it in for Alberto, IMO, are either in WADA or the UCI.



So? I'm not blaming them. I'm blaming WADA. Are you insinuating that the ones most likely to have leaked the story IYO are employees of the Cologne lab?



But you already know that he made it public because the German media were about to come out with the story. I suspect you already knew this so I really do not unders... Seriously, what is wrong with you?

In this case, if you're looking to allocate indignation approppriately I would say that finding out who leaked the story to the German media would raise similar disgust on your part but... you seem to be Ok with someone who broke the very same rules you are grilling Alberto for. Double standards perhaps?



I said "by the positive", not "paid for positive tests". And yes, knowing how many positives have misteriously found their way to the media in the past few years... why isn't this put under the microscope? Who is doing the leaking? I mean, it's against the rules too. Either we implement the rules ALL the time to EVERYONE, or we don't.



When Alberto came out and announced that he had tested positive I was also a little hesitant in blaming the UCI, but weeks later, when McQuaid made the famous remark or Spain having a "doping problem"... it kinda made me think. It's like kicking a man when he's down. Aside from the fact that I've never heard McQuaid saying that the US has a doping problem (and the US has had a "pornographic" love affair with doping mind you)... if you really put the quote in perspective... it sounds to me like backstabber's guilt. Yes, they were trying to keep the positive out of the public eye but... something happened within WADA/the UCI and the way they approached the case. I believe that once WADA found out that McQuaid's opinion was in line with theirs... it was game over. Soon after the plasticizers pseudo-positive came out and the hunt was on.



No, not really. I choose what to defend and what not to defend. Now, just because I haven't gotten on the side of the Fuyu Li's defenders has more to do with sheer ignorance of the case than me actively wanting to avoid an injustice. Like I said, just because I don't speak for something does not mean I'm against it. That black/white, off/on, 0/1 mentality is reminiscent of a certain George Bush: Quick to point the finger but mighty slow to apologize.

Well I was just trying to establish your line of reasoning - so far I think I have:
- WADA/UCI only know the code, so one or other (or both) manipulated a positive.
- but after going to all that trouble, they (WADA/UCI) decided not to make the positive public (as they should do)..... and sat on it for a month.
- then someone is about to leak (what should have been publisied) to the media in an attempt to 'assainate' the character of Condator... by telling the truth.
- Someone (not sure who) got paid for that positive.
- Maybe this "guilt" that McQuaid had while backstabbing AC was because he didn't get his cut from this great deal?
- Not sure of which George Bush you're on about (senior or junior) but with what you have established it is not unreasonable that he/they is/are involved.

 

[Oldman]

Well I was just trying to establish your line of reasoning - so far I think I have:
- WADA/UCI only know the code, so one or other (or both) manipulated a positive.
- but after going to all that trouble, they (WADA/UCI) decided not to make the positive public (as they should do)..... and sat on it for a month.
- then someone is about to leak (what should have been publisied) to the media in an attempt to 'assainate' the character of Condator... by telling the truth.
- Someone (not sure who) got paid for that positive.
- Maybe this "guilt" that McQuaid had while backstabbing AC was because he didn't get his cut from this great deal?
- Not sure of which George Bush you're on about (senior or junior) but with what you have established it is not unreasonable that he/they is/are involved.

While we appreciate the tolerant effort you apply to argue your point, aren't you getting fatigued? This guy clearly hangs his logic on his subjective view of the events. And he's not very good at making a clear point.

 

[Ripper]

Who cares who leaked it. He tested positive. He hasn't denied the positive. He claims he ate meat with Clenbuterol. So what. He had an illegal substance in his test. He takes the ban unless he can prove without doubt how it got there. And I doubt that.

Bingo. You've nailed it (although you've nailed it many times so far, some people just are not really getting it).

The only way to less than a year is to find the cow!

 

[hrotha]

He doesn't really need to prove without doubt that his steak was contaminated. He only needs to establish the probability of it being contaminated, which is what Colò did. As things stand now, the probability of Contador's meat being contaminated is infinismally small, and they're not likely to be able to show anything to change that.

 

[python]

He doesn't really need to prove without doubt that his steak was contaminated. He only needs to establish the probability of it being contaminated, which is what Colò did.snip

this has been discussed many times but again the standard required to rebut the accusation is 'balance of probabilities'. which essentially means that he can get off the hook if he shows that one alternative is likelier than another by a mere percentage point.

colò's case (one year reduction due to 'no significant fault') was different from botcharov's (complete acquittal due to 'no fault).

since you're spanish, you probably saw that contador's submittal to rfec included undisclosed package along with the 'leaked' content re. contamination probability. the way i interpreted this news was that his lawyers strategy is twofold - (i) attack the minimum dose found as lacking performance enhancing effect (which is the easy part) and (ii) attempt to show via additional testing like hair etc (and that's the undisclosed part of his submittal) that clen was in the meat he (and his teammates) ate.

i'm pessimistic about the second part ever satisfying cas but it will likely pass through rfec.

 

[euphrades]

- (i) attack the minimum dose

i'm pessimistic about the second part ever satisfying cas but it will likely pass through rfec.

I find this easy to refute or maybe I am missing something. Everyone seems to think that he took that amount and tha tis what is left but i am of the belief that he took more and that was teh amount that was in his body at the time he was tested.

I agree with you on it having to go to CAS. I don't see the RFEC sanctioning him but i do see CAS, i think it will proceed just like Valverde.

 

[hrotha]

Apparently, WADA just sort of appealed Ovtcharov's aquittal.
http://www.deia.com/2010/12/01/deportes/otros-deportes/golpe-indirecto-a-contador
(I've only found the info in German and Spanish)

"For now, the appeal is pre-emptive, to ensure we have that right within the stipulated period", Frédèric Donze, WADA's spokesperson, told news agency Dpa. "After studying the data, WADA has established that it is necessary to clarify some issues regarding the decision of the German Federation"

"De momento, el recurso es preventivo para asegurarnos ese derecho dentro del plazo prescrito", dijo a la agencia Dpa el portavoz de la AMA, Frédèric Donze. "Tras el estudio de los datos, la AMA ha constatado que es necesario aclarar una serie de cuestiones sobre la decisión de la Federación Alemana"

 

[TubularBills]

Apparently, WADA just sort of appealed Ovtcharov's aquittal.
http://www.deia.com/2010/12/01/deportes/otros-deportes/golpe-indirecto-a-contador
(I've only found the info in German and Spanish)

Cycling Weekly also picked up the story:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...ppeal-to-cas-over-contaminated-meat-case.html

 

[Dimtick]

I'm just thinking out loud here & I apologize if this has already been discussed at length....I may have already posted this, I don't remember.

I'm wondering if the meat that WADA tested was tested to the same sensitivity as Cantador? Contadors postive only happened because the testing lab has very advanced equipment that is much more sensitive than other labs. I'm wondering if the meat was tested to this same degree? I'm guessing that there needs to be a higher concentration in the meat in order for it to be passed on at all so my question may be a mute point.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I think that this is really important to the Contador case.

If WADA et al want to question the German take on the case, then that could spell bad news for Contador.

The initial acceptance of the clen in the German's blood was via the accepted practice in China of doping beef cattle. Maybe that's not the whole story...

Maybe the 'ponger was doped afterall. Sh*t, I don't know ping pong from a hole in the ground. Maybe he was jacked the whole time. Getting those lucrative ping pong contracts and all...

Anyway, maybe it's Contador's case that's making them step back and take a look at things - as per a legit defense of clen in your blood. Trying to expunge future defenses.

For what it's worth, that's my take on it. They want to take a look at someone who got popped with clen in their blood, look at their defence, and ensure that that is not a route any sane person could try to pull on them.

Yay, WADA...

 

[Ferminal]

I'm just thinking out loud here & I apologize if this has already been discussed at length....I may have already posted this, I don't remember.

I'm wondering if the meat that WADA tested was tested to the same sensitivity as Cantador? Contadors postive only happened because the testing lab has very advanced equipment that is much more sensitive than other labs. I'm wondering if the meat was tested to this same degree? I'm guessing that there needs to be a higher concentration in the meat in order for it to be passed on at all so my question may be a mute point.

I think you answered your own question mostly!

Although it's just a guess, I wonder what concentration had to be in the steak in order to result in the 50 picograms/ml in Bertie's urine.

 

[danjo007]

Who the f *ck cares - it was in his system . Hes a cheat - gtfo !

 

[Barrus]

this has been discussed many times but again the standard required to rebut the accusation is 'balance of probabilities'. which essentially means that he can get off the hook if he shows that one alternative is likelier than another by a mere percentage point.

colò's case (one year reduction due to 'no significant fault') was different from botcharov's (complete acquittal due to 'no fault).

since you're spanish, you probably saw that contador's submittal to rfec included undisclosed package along with the 'leaked' content re. contamination probability. the way i interpreted this news was that his lawyers strategy is twofold - (i) attack the minimum dose found as lacking performance enhancing effect (which is the easy part) and (ii) attempt to show via additional testing like hair etc (and that's the undisclosed part of his submittal) that clen was in the meat he (and his teammates) ate.

i'm pessimistic about the second part ever satisfying cas but it will likely pass through rfec.

I believe there will be another strategy, especially if the UCI/WADA appeals. A purely technical and procedural defense, if the UCI had given Contador some guarantees that his contamination story was believed, as the media reported, it can well be possible that this is one of the main arguments by the team of COntador on appeal, similarly the gag-order of the UCI on Contador can be used well by his legal team. That all depends on the truth of those statements and the question of whether Contador has supporting evidence for these things, but if both of these things have occurred, it could well be a very procedural appeal

 

[python]

i will be surprised if wada appeals the ponger’s case though as i noted earlier the acquittal involved 2 unaccredited methods that wada typically frowns upon.

deutsche nada was actively involved (and consulted) from getgo. tischtennisbund reached out to nada right away when additional testing showed clen in the samples of 4 teammates who were never charged.


if wada does appeal it will be against the opinions of 2 of its german lab directors considered by many the best in the anti-doping business.

either way, contador's case will almost certainly bust if wada appeal the ponger's case.

 

[Dimtick]

I think you answered your own question mostly!

Although it's just a guess, I wonder what concentration had to be in the steak in order to result in the 50 picograms/ml in Bertie's urine.

I reaize of course that I answered my own question. I'm just raising the topic because you can be sure that Contadors lawyers will raise the issue if the testing done on the meat was not to the same sensitivity level as the urine test.

 

[Dallas_]

I reaize of course that I answered my own question. I'm just raising the topic because you can be sure that Contadors lawyers will raise the issue if the testing done on the meat was not to the same sensitivity level as the urine test.

in reply Dimtick, have UCI/WADA actually tested any meat? I dont think so - I mean, why would they? They have all the testing statistics needed from existing entities. Myself, am VERY confident UCI/WADA have covered all possible defense strategies. AC's lawyers will be clutching at any straws and lets be clear, any straws available are very short.

Just briefly, let us examine one of those short straws - clen in meat. If there was food contamination(which I doubt)
how do AC and his advisers know it is in meat a month later? eggs? cheeze? onions? chicken? Do you send food for testing a month before eating?

My theory is that from the beginning UCI/WADA collaborated to create a near watertight case. They realized from the beginning, AC and his lawyers could throw mega euros at them - Let us cover all bases early.
My other theory is the bio passport program spat out data saying target AC

Congratulations UCI/WADA and possibly the bio passport

cheers dallas

 

[Dimtick]

in reply Dimtick, have UCI/WADA actually tested any meat? I dont think so - I mean, why would they? They have all the testing statistics needed from existing entities. Myself, am VERY confident UCI/WADA have covered all possible defense strategies. AC's lawyers will be clutching at any straws and lets be clear, any straws available are very short.

Just briefly, let us examine one of those short straws - clen in meat. If there was food contamination(which I doubt)
how do AC and his advisers know it is in meat a month later? eggs? cheeze? onions? chicken? Do you send food for testing a month before eating?

My theory is that from the beginning UCI/WADA collaborated to create a near watertight case. They realized from the beginning, AC and his lawyers could throw mega euros at them - Let us cover all bases early.
My other theory is the bio passport program spat out data saying target AC

Congratulations UCI/WADA and possibly the bio passport

cheers dallas

the unconfirmed stories that came out when WADA gave their report to Spain, was that WADA had tracked the meat to a butcher shop and from there they were able to trace it back to the source farm. They tested meat from both the butcher shop & the farm and it all came back negative. They then went onto state that if Clenbuterol was being used by the farm, that the farmers would know to not butcher the cows until enough time had passed (a month) for the Clenbuterol to have full benifits to the cow and also no longer be detected.
AC is claiming the meat because it used to be common practice for Clenbuterol to be given to cows to improve the meat. it's been banned for a long time (because of the Mad Cow scare) but I'm sure there are still ranchers that do it illegally. I don't think that Clen has the same benifits for chickens or for dairy cows so it would be hard to argue that it came from that.
Personally I think that AC was doping. it just makes sense. The Bad meat certainly doesn't explain the plasticizer.

 

[sniper]

Personally I think that AC was doping. it just makes sense. The Bad meat certainly doesn't explain the plasticizer.

I don't think any sane person in this forum doubts that AC has been doing bloodtransfusions throughout his remarkably successful carreer. Either that, or he's a one-of-a-kind-superathlete, as he's been able to beat other riders with a similar (if not better) physical constitution, riders of whom we know they were/are doing blood- and other doping.

That's what I liked about LA's defense: at least he tried to scientifically show that he was a natural-born-superathlete, which one obviously needs to be, if one is to win 7 TdFs clean amid doped riders.
(Of course, we now know that the scientific proof for LA being a superathlete was based on falsified data, but at least he tried.)

 

[krebs303]

I think you answered your own question mostly!

Although it's just a guess, I wonder what concentration had to be in the steak in order to result in the 50 picograms/ml in Bertie's urine.

Here are two studies
Recent Advances in Doping Analysis

THE PHARMACOKINETICS AND RESIDUES
OF CLENBUTEROL IN VEAL CALVES

and quite a bit of info in this thread
Clenbuterol & half-life

 

[RobbieCanuck]

The lawyers don' need AC, he needs them.

Yes, spooky. I'm guessing the lawyers are just after his money and are happy to keep him hoping he'll get off on some last minute technicality, in the meantime they're raking in the cash.

Any decent lawyer would have told him to lie low and hope for the best.

AC's lawyers do not need to learn how to ride a bike from AC. He needs them because he is in sh*t. Thats what people who are in sh*t do. Do you expect the lawyers who have specialized skill and training that can help AC, not charge him a fee? You are a bit naive about why people retain lawyers and why lawyers charge a fee.

Any decent lawyer would defend their client vigorously, and challenge all aspects of the UCI case. Lying low and hoping for the best is not a good defence in this case. Stick to your day job and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

 

[Benotti69]

AC's lawyers do not need to learn how to ride a bike from AC. He needs them because he is in sh*t. Thats what people who are in sh*t do. Do you expect the lawyers who have specialized skill and training that can help AC, not charge him a fee? You are a bit naive about why people retain lawyers and why lawyers charge a fee.

Any decent lawyer would defend their client vigorously, and challenge all aspects of the UCI case. Lying low and hoping for the best is not a good defence in this case. Stick to your day job and leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

a fee that is exorbitant and not really ever worth the figure.

part of society ills today is people run crying to lawyers at the first sign of trouble and blame someone else for their f*&k ups.