-
Willing to volunteer time as a moderator? We'd love to hear from you!
python said:
Note I said finding a piece of suspect meat would be a legitimate start of a defense in light of the fact that his team is debunking WADA's "evidence" to the contrary. He's vulnerable on several fronts and this is now and it is a Tour winner we're talking about, not a German ponger. I don't for a second think the Spanish federation will put Alberto through a huge wringer unless he keeps discrediting a major food source in Spain.
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
Im not a native english speaker but my knowledge of the language and the usage of the definite and indefinite articles (very similar to my native language) is sufficient to pick up a difference between what you originally saidOldman said:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=383242&postcount=32
And what you had posted last
‘The only legitimate’ does not equal ‘a legitimate’ in English. agree with the rest of your post.
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
The CN story reported that Bert objected to the report on the basis of two points. The first one was that only 0.4% of all cattle were actually tested for CB, leaving millions or whatever number of head untested. That they would take this approach is really an act of desperation. It's elementary statistics that you don't have to test all cattle to make a very accurate estimate of how many are likely to be contaminated. If some percentage of those tested are contaminated, one can say with a high degree of certainty that the same percentage, plus or minus some standard error, holds for the entire population. Of course this assumes an adequate cross-section, but this shouldn't be difficult to obtain. If you test cattle from all over Spain, the % should hold unless there are some small pockets of heavily doped animals in certain areas. But if that's the case, it's also unlikely that Bert ate meat from those small areas.
The other objection Bert made was that since athletes dope against the rules, it's reasonable that farmers would, too. I love this point. In an effort to establish his innocence, Bert acknowledges that elite athletes like himself are quite willing to ignore the rules. If his argument is going to carry any weight, moreover, he has to theorize that clandestine doping by farmers is very common, which implies that it's also very common among athletes like himself.
The other objection Bert made was that since athletes dope against the rules, it's reasonable that farmers would, too. I love this point. In an effort to establish his innocence, Bert acknowledges that elite athletes like himself are quite willing to ignore the rules. If his argument is going to carry any weight, moreover, he has to theorize that clandestine doping by farmers is very common, which implies that it's also very common among athletes like himself.
- Oct 25, 2010
- 3,049
- 2
- 0
hrotha said:
OK, switch to the singular on Acquittal.
I think that the lawyers are going to hammer-away at food contamination, and I suspect they'll do a better job of it than people here suspect. With so many reduced suspensions and a Spanish audience, I think it's a case worth fighting. They might have already found plenty of random Spanish cows that test positive, especially since only .4% of cows were ever tested for it.
Seek and ye shall find. If you've got the money, that is.
BotanyBay said:
But that's still gonna be tricky for AC, cuz he's basically gonna be up against the Spanish meat industry, who won't be passively allowing AC to say or claim whatever suits him in this respect.
- Feb 14, 2010
- 2,202
- 0
- 0
I'm still on the fence as to whether Contador cheated or not, but trying to keep an open mind about the "evidence" being presented. A lot of people said that the meat purchase never happened, but Astana had reimbursed the guy who picked it up, and they came up with the receipt. WADA obviously accepts that, as they spoke to a specific butcher. So everyone who said the purchase never happened, for whatever reason, was wrong.
Today the topic of Statistics pops up. I had to take a general studies statistics course at college, and had the best grades in my class of 120 business majors. Yes, you can talk about probability and random sampling, and it's easy with fair dice, or a light bulb factory, and you can decide an acceptable margin of error. Someone do the math and see if the UCI did enough tests at the Tour de France to guarantee us with 99% accuracy that the race was clean. You can't, because people have ways around the system.
I've seen two figures today, based on what seems to imply that the testing is done at the slaughterhouse. It was said that farmers who fatten the cattle with Clenbuterol stop using it either 14 or 20 days prior to the animal being slaughtered. (That date would be controllable because they decide when to deliver the cattle.) But wait, why would that be in the report when we've been told for a fact that Clenbuterol hasn't been used in Spain in years. People think that all Spanish cyclists dope, but their cousins in the beef industry would never consider cheating to make more money in a country with 20% unemployment. Velonation posted this from Contador's lawyers:
Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6...ule-out-food-contamination.aspx#ixzz15aoF1W8O
That works out to 1 in 1199 of the cattle being tested for Clenbuterol. I don't know about the rest of you, but news stories prior to today made it seem like they tested every last one of them, especially with doping "experts" like Damsgaard coming forward without seeing any evidence, prior to rumors of plasticizers, and saying that Contador transfused blood.
In Statistics you don't have anyone trying to manipulate the results. Here you have possible motivated cheaters trying to get around the system for financial gain. Sounds familiar. Are the inspectors 100% honest and above bribery? Are they present at the slaughterhouse around the clock, or could a guy call his cousins and say today would be a good day to bring in some cattle?
Contador's lawyers said that based on the report, all WADA did was talk to a butcher, ask him if he followed rules, and ask for a list of his suppliers. What if there's a shady slaughterhouse he left off the list? What if he brings in meat from animals slaughtered elsewhere? What if he and/or a rancher did it on their own to make extra profit?
Like I said, I've got an open mind on the thing. My own opinion gets swayed day to day by the best info I can find. A lot of the international press declared Game Over based on this report.
When this goes to CAS (taken there by WADA), there are going to be some fundamental issues. The people in other sports are barely tested, so if something turns up in their system on the rare day that they are, it's kind of a big deal. I saw one quote that had Contador being tested a hundred times in a year, including days prior to this positive. That's a different ball game, because there's a lot more info available, and there's zero evidence that at any time in his life he had higher levels in his system.
The UCI had an enforced 72 hour turn around for the large amount of samples sent to Lausanne during the Tour. A small number were sent to Cologne for more in-depth testing. I would have thought that special attention would have been paid to those, and people like Bordry said there were rumors at the end of the Tour, but that's impossible if the UCI is telling the truth about August 23 notification of a July 21 positive. The lady swimmer had been able to prove accidental contamination by supplement because she hadn't finished the bottle. That was only possible because there was no delay in notifying her. Imagine how many court cases you could win if the powers that be waited until all possible evidence for the defense was sure to be gone before charging them with something?
If you're going to attack me, please do it based on the facts, or some flaw in my logic. Don't do it based on prejudice towards me or the athlete and his entire nation. But the bottom line is that WADA and the UCI had top scientists and equipment and tons of samples and data to look at, and at the end of the day, all they found was an amount of a substance well below their testing requirement, in an amount that could not affect the outcome of a three week race. Everything else right now is rumors and opinions not held by the people who studied the data. Cheers.
Today the topic of Statistics pops up. I had to take a general studies statistics course at college, and had the best grades in my class of 120 business majors. Yes, you can talk about probability and random sampling, and it's easy with fair dice, or a light bulb factory, and you can decide an acceptable margin of error. Someone do the math and see if the UCI did enough tests at the Tour de France to guarantee us with 99% accuracy that the race was clean. You can't, because people have ways around the system.
I've seen two figures today, based on what seems to imply that the testing is done at the slaughterhouse. It was said that farmers who fatten the cattle with Clenbuterol stop using it either 14 or 20 days prior to the animal being slaughtered. (That date would be controllable because they decide when to deliver the cattle.) But wait, why would that be in the report when we've been told for a fact that Clenbuterol hasn't been used in Spain in years. People think that all Spanish cyclists dope, but their cousins in the beef industry would never consider cheating to make more money in a country with 20% unemployment. Velonation posted this from Contador's lawyers:
Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6...ule-out-food-contamination.aspx#ixzz15aoF1W8O
That works out to 1 in 1199 of the cattle being tested for Clenbuterol. I don't know about the rest of you, but news stories prior to today made it seem like they tested every last one of them, especially with doping "experts" like Damsgaard coming forward without seeing any evidence, prior to rumors of plasticizers, and saying that Contador transfused blood.
In Statistics you don't have anyone trying to manipulate the results. Here you have possible motivated cheaters trying to get around the system for financial gain. Sounds familiar. Are the inspectors 100% honest and above bribery? Are they present at the slaughterhouse around the clock, or could a guy call his cousins and say today would be a good day to bring in some cattle?
Contador's lawyers said that based on the report, all WADA did was talk to a butcher, ask him if he followed rules, and ask for a list of his suppliers. What if there's a shady slaughterhouse he left off the list? What if he brings in meat from animals slaughtered elsewhere? What if he and/or a rancher did it on their own to make extra profit?
Like I said, I've got an open mind on the thing. My own opinion gets swayed day to day by the best info I can find. A lot of the international press declared Game Over based on this report.
When this goes to CAS (taken there by WADA), there are going to be some fundamental issues. The people in other sports are barely tested, so if something turns up in their system on the rare day that they are, it's kind of a big deal. I saw one quote that had Contador being tested a hundred times in a year, including days prior to this positive. That's a different ball game, because there's a lot more info available, and there's zero evidence that at any time in his life he had higher levels in his system.
The UCI had an enforced 72 hour turn around for the large amount of samples sent to Lausanne during the Tour. A small number were sent to Cologne for more in-depth testing. I would have thought that special attention would have been paid to those, and people like Bordry said there were rumors at the end of the Tour, but that's impossible if the UCI is telling the truth about August 23 notification of a July 21 positive. The lady swimmer had been able to prove accidental contamination by supplement because she hadn't finished the bottle. That was only possible because there was no delay in notifying her. Imagine how many court cases you could win if the powers that be waited until all possible evidence for the defense was sure to be gone before charging them with something?
If you're going to attack me, please do it based on the facts, or some flaw in my logic. Don't do it based on prejudice towards me or the athlete and his entire nation. But the bottom line is that WADA and the UCI had top scientists and equipment and tons of samples and data to look at, and at the end of the day, all they found was an amount of a substance well below their testing requirement, in an amount that could not affect the outcome of a three week race. Everything else right now is rumors and opinions not held by the people who studied the data. Cheers.
theswordsman said:
Bottom line is Contador tested positive for a banned substance. Whether he got it from Peds, eating a steak or eating pussy doesn't mean anything to me. PEDs found in system, guilty.
python said:
It is my understanding that the hair sample was negative by the ping pong player. Clenbuterol can be detected in hair, only if it would have been used in high doses or longer term. In my opinion, Contador does not need a hair test, because his doping test on the previous day was negative and showed that clenbuterol was not taken in high doses. http://www.tischtennis.de/aktuelles/meldung/11138 „ Dimitrij Ovtcharovs hair sample showed then not the slightest evidence of clenbuterol or its abuse. Clenbuterol could be detected in the hair, if it had been used in high doses or longer term.”
Ah, you have white lies, big lies and then you gave statistics. Is anyone with any knowledge of law actually seriously going to defend convicting someone on with penal law and got it wrong big time.
As a scholar of law I also still have a lot of trouble with the notion that a defendant has to prove he did nothing wrong. Trying to prove you didn't do something is nigh impossible. I still think the onus should be on the prosecutor to prove that you did do something illegal.
This becomes even more important if one cannot seriously exclude that for example clenbuterol can get into your system unwittingly. Yes, you are responsible for what you digest, but again it is practically impossible to test all your food before you eat it, so the burden on the athlete becomes ridiculous and he is basically taking part in a lottery, where he has to hope his number doesn't come up. Is that really what we want?
Do we really want a system where an innocent man (not saying that AC is innocent, for that we have far too little kowledge of the file at hand) can get convicted just to make sure that no guilty men escape punishment (and they still do escape, we all know that)? I for one would much rather see a guilty men escape punishment than an innocent man wrongly convicted.
Regards
GJ
As a scholar of law I also still have a lot of trouble with the notion that a defendant has to prove he did nothing wrong. Trying to prove you didn't do something is nigh impossible. I still think the onus should be on the prosecutor to prove that you did do something illegal.
This becomes even more important if one cannot seriously exclude that for example clenbuterol can get into your system unwittingly. Yes, you are responsible for what you digest, but again it is practically impossible to test all your food before you eat it, so the burden on the athlete becomes ridiculous and he is basically taking part in a lottery, where he has to hope his number doesn't come up. Is that really what we want?
Do we really want a system where an innocent man (not saying that AC is innocent, for that we have far too little kowledge of the file at hand) can get convicted just to make sure that no guilty men escape punishment (and they still do escape, we all know that)? I for one would much rather see a guilty men escape punishment than an innocent man wrongly convicted.
Regards
GJ
GJB123 said:
Back during the Tour of Flanders 2010 the haters on the forum, besides scoffing at My Lord Armstrongs' Gastro intestinal and teasing about his gut and his wanting to be involved in his son the mighty mighty Lukes' soapbox derby competition this issue was addressed.
Many riders were falling sick and having to withdraw from races at that time.
Lance in his great wisdom brought his own chef, with his own food and his own water. I would bet that Lance had his own personal Beefeaters testing the food to make sure that one of his devious opponents had not spiked it with some of the substances some of us here refer to as dope.
My point is, not to be rude or as condescending as some of the haters who have hated upon my Lance and myself is that we are responsible for what we ingest.
As a true player Mr. Contador needs to shadow-box and study his opponents, and if you have read many of the fine and informative books which have been written about my Lord Lance and his Sancho Panza Mark Cavendish, there are tricks to the trade of cycling.
Some in this game might spike anothers Perrier water for instance.
Luckily here in the USA things like that are not allowed.
All Mr. Contador had needed to do was stay with his superb, morale mentor Bruyneel and have read all of the fine texts by my Lord Armstrong while he was laying on the beach with his gal Suzy Creamcheese right before he rode the Giro in 2008 and Contador would not be laying in this stack of court papers.
I only wish I had started the thread lessons from Lance a few months sooner, so that Contador could have followed my advice about studying his opponents.(esp. Lord Armstrong).
I guess Mr. Contador could look on the bright side as now he is paying his lawyers childrens' college tuition and their retirement funds.
WADA trial: the gift that just keeps on giving. Like the DISCOVER card PRICELESS!
personal said:
"You are what you eat, " John Lennon
"You are what you eat, drink, apply in a cream,Inject, transfuse, insert rectally, take in a time release "patch" or especially special Basque meat, vacuum sealed with some highly active plasticizers." The Flicker
- Oct 5, 2010
- 1,045
- 0
- 10,480
theswordsman said:
What you have outlined here is actually the problem for Contador. It does not help him.....
This is EXACTLY what the situation would be if he were blood doping. It is alleged (and the time frame fits) that he :
- took clen directly after the Dauphine Libre
- trained for a bit .... and withdrew blood when the clen was almost all broken down (to the levels that were available to his medical personell) prior to the TdF. He couldnt wait too much longer as he needed time to get his levels back to baseline to start as they test for the ABP.
- he injected that blood ont he rest day. The injected blood is then further diluted by his own blood, giving an incredibly small reading such as he tested posative for.
No rider in his right mind is going to microdose to that level as there is no benefit to be obtained from even the maximum amount he could have taken given his negative test 2 days prior.
So that leaves 2 explanations ... blood doping or contamination.
The tests they DID do will be further examined (especially including any blood tests) to check for other elements which may be off and may indicate blood doping. (reticules, OFF etc) These would not be enough to prove anything on their own, but combined with other evidence are enough to be considered a reasonable posability.
When there are only 2 real possabilities, its really up to AC to prove that blood doping ISNT that reasonable.
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
GJB123 said:
regardless of the merits, and i'm not saying there completely absent, this approach is dead on arrival at cas if used by contador. case after case was rejected. strict liability is what cas and wada pray to.
however, i will not be surprised if in the future clenbuterol will be given status of a threshold substance. perhaps the reason wada took upon themselves to invest into contador’s case was divergence of opinions within wada.
python said:
Using strict liability for what is for all intents purposes a penal trial resulting in a possible sentence, is not on. If this were anything else than internal sports law, for example normal penal law, these kinds of going-on's would get thrown out by the European Human Rights Court in the blink of an eye.
Regards
GJ
- Oct 5, 2010
- 1,045
- 0
- 10,480
GJB123 said:
He was presumed innocent.
He tested posative to a banned substance that is not produced naturally in the body. The 'B' sample was also posative ... so he has actually received a fair go here ... that is their proof and they have put it on the table.
It is now up to him to show that he did not ingest it knowingly or intentionally, or any other mitigating circumstance.
It is not possible to have the rules any other way. Imagine if you had to prove that an athlete not only has PED's in their system, but had to prove that they took them knowingly, where they got them or any other supportive evidence. Competition would basically cease to exist .... Athletes know these rules and accept them when they come in to elite level sports. Thats why they bring their own chef, test their ingredients etc ...
python said:
I understand that CAS and WADA don't give a dime about that. My point is that they should. As should any other person and/or sports fan.
Regards
GJ
PS If it is too much off-topic I could start a separate thread. I trust the admin's will let me know one way or the other.
AussieGoddess said:
Whether they truly accepted those rules or were just forced to accept is a whole different matter. In one of the threads here someone posted a few letters written to Pat McQuaid by Pedro Horillo. Read them and think again!
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11193
But by your logic you could get someone sentenced for murder without actually proving didley, solely based on circumstancial evidence and a probabilty. It is utter folly to think that anyone can prove afterwards whether they accidentally ingested a forbidden substance. By default that means that they will always be found guilty. Now that might be fine in your and flicker's book, it ain't in mine, because you inadvertently end up punishing innocent people (and we are talking taking away their lifelihood in the case of pro sporters).
In cases of PED's like Clen, firstly I would introduce treshold values, secondly I would seriously consider not punishing for substances that can be ingested accidentally or a comination of the two. Nobody can claim accidental use of CERA of EPO, but apparently it is posible for Clen. Reasonable doubt means you acquit in thoe cases, at least in regular courts of law outside North-Korea, Iran and the kangaroo court called CAS.
Regards
GJ
jae2460 said:I could be mistaken, but my understanding was that the UCI report included the WADA report/evidence and was the basis for requesting that Spain hold a hearing re: Contador.
I don't know what everyone is so concerned about though for Contador, I am absolutely confident and remain optimistic that Spain will acquit Contador...
Spain??? Do you mean the Spanish Cycling Federation (SCF)?
I don't think a country has the power to acquit anyone.
Now, if the SCF decides to let him off the hook, more power to Alberto! Busting someone for 50 picograms of clenbuterol is the equivalent of putting someone in jail for once having asked Saddam Hussain what time it was.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Amstel Gold Race 2025, one day classic, April 20 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 821
-
-
Ronde van Vlaanderen 2025, one day monument, April 6 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 2K
-
Itzulia Basque Country 2025, April 7th-12th- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram