ContadorÂ’s legal team hit back at WADA report

[I Watch Cycling In July]

But by your logic you could get someone sentenced for murder without actually proving didley, solely based on circumstancial evidence and a probabilty.

Only if you applied sporting contractual rules to a criminal murder investigation. Nobody is suggesting that.

You are too far off topic for this thread in my opinion, but welcome to the forum anyway.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Meat is tested, OK.
But for which level of clenbuterol? I doubt level of animal/meat tests are at same level as in German lab that tested Contador.

I wondered about that too.

Then I wondered how many athletes that eat meat from Spain get tested by the German lab............and what fraction of them go positive for clen.

Don't know if that info is in the WADA report but it is the first question I would ask.

 

[Oldman]

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!

What's truly priceless is your prose spiced with a reference from the esteemed Dr. Zappa. Kudos, I say! Kudos.

 

[_yngve_]

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.


Regards
GJ

They have that proof - Positive 'A' and 'B' samples. There is no dispute that AC had, at the time of the tests, a prohibited substance in his blood. There is no dispute that the substance is subject to a 'strict liability' prohibition; either it's not there or it is - no "minimum allowable levels". There is no dispute that this strict liability means that, regardless of source, AC is responsible for ensuring that he does not ingest any of the prohibited substance, and that a failure to do so (regardless of source or cause) gives rise to a violation.

Essentially, to put it in criminal law parlance, he's been convicted - all that remains is the sentencing. It is up to AC to present mitigating evidence which proves that the presence of the proof presented above should be ignored and/or should be excused due to accident. To do so, the burden of proof must lie with him to demonstrate that this accident did indeed occur.

 

[BotanyBay]

I wondered about that too.

Then I wondered how many athletes that eat meat from Spain get tested by the German lab............and what fraction of them go positive for clen.

Don't know if that info is in the WADA report but it is the first question I would ask.

Is every sample even given the same battery of tests from the onset? My guess is that they run samples through lesser controls to get probable "hits" and then they go back and zoom-in to prove the suspicion.

 

[GJB123]

They have that proof - Positive 'A' and 'B' samples. There is no dispute that AC had, at the time of the tests, a prohibited substance in his blood. There is no dispute that the substance is subject to a 'strict liability' prohibition; either it's not there or it is - no "minimum allowable levels". There is no dispute that this strict liability means that, regardless of source, AC is responsible for ensuring that he does not ingest any of the prohibited substance, and that a failure to do so (regardless of source or cause) gives rise to a violation.

Essentially, to put it in criminal law parlance, he's been convicted - all that remains is the sentencing. It is up to AC to present mitigating evidence which proves that the presence of the proof presented above should be ignored and/or should be excused due to accident. To do so, the burden of proof must lie with him to demonstrate that this accident did indeed occur.

Thanks for once again explaining the facts and the rules as they currently are. I had no idea so your help is much appreciated.

In short, I know the facts as they have been presented so far and I know the rules. My point is and was that, irrespective of AC's case, the rules suck form a legal (penal law) point of view and would be thrown out by the European Human Rights court if it was anything else than an internal sporting regulation. That becomes even clearer if one looks at the bio passport (Pelizotti's case).

What you in fact say is the following. A doctor operates on a patient, the patient dies. We have proof that the doctor performed an operation and we have the proof that the patient is dead. Hence the doctor is liable for the patient's death and he should proof that this was an accident not due to him making a mistake. See the analogy?

Regards
GJ

 

[Oldman]

Thanks for once again explaining the facts and the rules as they currently are. I had no idea so your help is much appreciated.

In short, I know the facts as they have been presented so far and I know the rules. My point is and was that, irrespective of AC's case, the rules suck form a legal (penal law) point of view and would be thrown out by the European Human Rights court if it was anything else than an internal sporting regulation. That becomes even clearer if one looks at the bio passport (Pelizotti's case).

What you in fact say is the following. A doctor operates on a patient, the patient dies. We have proof that the doctor performed an operation and we have the proof that the patient is dead. Hence the doctor is liable for the patient's death and he should proof that this was an accident not due to him making a mistake. See the analogy?Regards
GJ

You miss the point. This is a contracturally accepted relationship and protocol and has nothing to do with any other "rights", despite letters for Horillo or anyone else. The riders signed on to perform within these rules. Period.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

You miss the point. This is a contracturally accepted relationship and protocol and has nothing to do with any other "rights", despite letters for Horillo or anyone else. The riders signed on to perform within these rules. Period.

Exactly. Dancing around the niceties of legal argumentation vis a vis different countries doesn't matter.

Sign your license, follow the rules...

 

[D-Queued]

...

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.

I love this argument.

To establish his innocense, Bert would have to prove that athletes dope.

He could offer his own program as irrefutable evidence.

In so doing, cycling would truly become a spectator sport. Or, perhaps the latest incarnation of reality TV where athletes try and outdo each other's doping programs and most signficant proof of doping without a suspension. Lance would still win seven in a row, but it would be a ratings hit that we could watch in prime time instead of at 5 am.

Dave.

 

[personal]

It must be really easy when you live in the black and white world.

 

[Señor_Contador]

Regardless of the agreement he may have signed... if he takes the case to the ordinary courts I can't see how WADA can prove that 50 picograms can be considered doping. Or indicative of doping for that matter.

If that were the case what would end up happening is that the judge, or whoever intermediates the conflict, would end up requesting WADA to prove that 50 grams of Clen can be considered doping. That is, if you get a real judge. If the case falls on the laps of a "puppet judge" then Contador is toast.

A friend of mine had a similar problem when he was going to college. He was taking a test and someone had put a cheat sheet tucked under the desk. The cheat sheet fell on the floor as the teacher happened to be walking by.

To make a long story short, teacher tries to get the student expelled, school initially agrees (they had no choice because according to the teacher he was breaking the internal "code of honor"), kid threatens to take the case to Da Law, the school decides to "review" the case and reinstate him after he shows up at the hearing and proves to the panel that it wasn't even his handwriting.

The teacher got no reprimand whatsoever though.

Common sense.

 

[hrotha]

Regardless of the agreement he may have signed... if he takes the case to the ordinary courts I can't see how WADA can prove that 50 picograms can be considered doping. Or indicative of doping for that matter.

If that were the case what would end up happening is that the judge, or whoever intermediates the conflict, would end up requesting WADA to prove that 50 grams of Clen can be considered doping. That is, if you get a real judge. If the case falls on the laps of a "puppet judge" then Contador is toast.

A friend of mine had a similar problem when he was going to college. He was taking a test and someone had put a cheat sheet tucked under the desk. The cheat sheet fell on the floor as the teacher happened to be walking by.

To make a long story short, teacher tries to get the student expelled, school initially agrees (they had no choice because according to the teacher he was breaking the internal "code of honor"), kid threatens to take the case to Da Law, the school decides to "review" the case and reinstate him after he shows up at the hearing and proves to the panel that it wasn't even his handwriting.

The teacher got no reprimand whatsoever though.

Common sense.

Several problems with this.

First, WADA doesn't have to prove that 50 picograms of clen can be considered doping. According to their rules, which UCI and Contador have agreed to accept, anything above 0 is considered doping. You keep saying it can't be doping or that it doesn't improve your performance, but that's nonsense. It is doping because it's banned. It improves your performance indirectly by helping you lose weight without losing muscle. Simple as that.

Your friend could prove it wasn't his handwriting. Contador should then prove he didn't get clen through any wrongdoing of his own.

 

[Señor_Contador]

It is doping because it's banned. It improves your performance indirectly by helping you lose weight without losing muscle. Simple as that.

Oh, I beg to differ. Doping is widely regarded as "The use of a drug or blood product to improve athletic performance". Key words here are "to improve athletic performance". Anyone with a sane mind and minimal knowledge of PEDs would know 50 picograms of clen improve your athletic performance as much as a beef jerky dipped in cheddar cheese. Thus there's no doping. Thus the only problem that exists is an overreaching internal doping rule that needs updating.

You may want to prove that 50 picograms is indicative of doping, but that is an entirely different issue. And, I opine, the only road left for WADA to take, that is if Alberto were to raise the ante to the ordinary courts.

WADA needs a rude awakening fast. I sincerely hope the athletes give it to them Big Time.

 

[gobuck]

originally posted by Señor_Contador
" Doping is widely regarded as "The use of a drug or blood product to improve athletic performance". Key words here are "to improve athletic performance". "

Oh, I beg to differ.
How many guys have been suspended for canibis. There isn't any performance improvement frome it, yet many guys and gals have been suspended.

 

[hrotha]

Oh, I beg to differ. Doping is widely regarded as "The use of a drug or blood product to improve athletic performance". Key words here are "to improve athletic performance". Anyone with a sane mind and minimal knowledge of PEDs would know 50 picograms of clen improve your athletic performance as much as a beef jerky dipped in cheddar cheese.

Please explain, how does losing weight by reducing your body fat (when your body fat is above its optimal level) not improve your athletic performance?

 

[Señor_Contador]

How many guys have been suspended for canibis. There isn't any performance improvement frome it, yet many guys and gals have been suspended.

I know, that is why I'm saying WADA, or whoever is suspending all these athletes because of things that really do not enhance athletic performance, are wrong. Dead wrong. And they're destroying lifes in the the process.

To me it all looks like a bunch of witchhunters running amock. They see witches all over the place. It's our own little version of cycling McCarthyism. When are we going to realise WADA are really "losing it"?

 

[Señor_Contador]

Please explain, how does losing weight by reducing your body fat (when your body fat is above its optimal level) not improve your athletic performance?

50 picograms of clen do not make you lose bodyfat.

500,000,000 (which I presume would be the amount picked up by WADA if a cyclist were tested while full-on in a cycle of clen of about 50 mg of clen) yes, 50 no.

And looking at AC's body pre-Tour... he didn't look like he needed to lose a lot of weight. Certainly not enough weight to get into a clen cycle. It would really be a dumb move on AC's part if he did that.

Ulrich would've been The Perfect Candidate for Clen because he used to put on something like 30-40 pounds during the offseason.

 

[poupou]

Oh, I beg to differ. Doping is widely regarded as "The use of a drug or blood product to improve athletic performance". Key words here are "to improve athletic performance". Anyone with a sane mind and minimal knowledge of PEDs would know 50 picograms of clen improve your athletic performance as much as a beef jerky dipped in cheddar cheese. Thus there's no doping. Thus the only problem that exists is an overreaching internal doping rule that needs updating.

You may want to prove that 50 picograms is indicative of doping, but that is an entirely different issue. And, I opine, the only road left for WADA to take, that is if Alberto were to raise the ante to the ordinary courts.

WADA needs a rude awakening fast. I sincerely hope the athletes give it to them Big Time.

The rule is the rule.

Even if it was a bad msitake resulting of no advantage, he has gone away some many times with blood doping that he has no reason to be unhappy to be caught for that.
He has just to accept his futur punishment as an adult.

 

[RdBiker]

You may want to prove that 50 picograms is indicative of doping, but that is an entirely different issue. And, I opine, the only road left for WADA to take, that is if Alberto were to raise the ante to the ordinary courts.

WADA needs a rude awakening fast. I sincerely hope the athletes give it to them Big Time.

Masking agents don't improve performance but they indicate doping use. Should masking agents be allowed then?

50 picograms on its own may not help you lose muscle but that amount may be just the leftovers from the original dosage. Either he used small amounts during the Tour or (which I find more plausible) they came from re-infused blood drawn at a time when he used Clenbuterol to loose weight.

I can't really see a reason why that Clen would've been in his system other than doping. It's possible he got it from tainted meat but it seems unlikely when considering the tests the EU does on cattle and the fact (from the WADA report) that farmers would wait for the Clen to clear out if the animals had it in them.

Let me put it this way. It's possible that Contador is clean but it's also possible he doped. Now which seems more likely? If you would have to bet 1000 euros of your own money, which would you choose?

 

[Señor_Contador]

The rule is the rule.

Even if it was a bad msitake resulting of no advantage, he has gone away some many times with blood doping that he has no reason to be unhappy to be caught for that.
He has just to accept his futur punishment as an adult.

Look, I'm not saying it is not a rule. I'm merely pointing out the fact that it is, by all accounts, a bad rule.

I bet you'd be singing a different tune if the company you work for required you to take a test regularly and one day you tested positive, somehow, for cannabis and you got fired. I bet you wouldn't be saying "a rule's a rule" then huh justiciero?

 

[flicker]

Oh, I beg to differ. Doping is widely regarded as "The use of a drug or blood product to improve athletic performance". Key words here are "to improve athletic performance". Anyone with a sane mind and minimal knowledge of PEDs would know 50 picograms of clen improve your athletic performance as much as a beef jerky dipped in cheddar cheese. Thus there's no doping. Thus the only problem that exists is an overreaching internal doping rule that needs updating.

You may want to prove that 50 picograms is indicative of doping, but that is an entirely different issue. And, I opine, the only road left for WADA to take, that is if Alberto were to raise the ante to the ordinary courts.

WADA needs a rude awakening fast. I sincerely hope the athletes give it to them Big Time.

Senor Contador, you are either really loosing it or are one of Floyds' old attorneys. Either way, unless you can prove it was the Jack Daniels or Slim-jims what have you your boy is sunk. He is not getting out of this shark tank alive.(Particularly bad timing with the USPS service investigation ramping up, no?)

 

[LeakyBoat]

I bet you'd be singing a different tune if the company you work for required you to take a test regularly and one day you tested positive, somehow, for cannabis and you got fired. I bet you wouldn't be saying "a rule's a rule" then huh justiciero?

Why not? Just like AC you'd have to prove you were positive through no fault of your own, that's what you, and AC, signed up to. Don't like the rule, don't join the club.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Mental Gymnastics

Senor,

You are changing the argument as you go along to fit your opinion. Stop it.

Maybe you need to examine why you need to go to great lengths to defend deviants like Pharmador and his doping technologists?

 

[Señor_Contador]

Masking agents don't improve performance but they indicate doping use. Should masking agents be allowed then?

Sure. They certainly do not provide athletic benefit. Look, if your statutes/mission statement specifically state that you are fighting doping then you must adhere to those statutes. You then have to develop your modus operandi along those lines: What is doping? What substances can be described as doping substances? Which ones should go on the banned substances list? What amounts can be considered doping? I mean, "an indication of" is so vague that it makes my blood boil.

50 picograms on its own may not help you lose muscle but that amount may be just the leftovers from the original dosage. Either he used small amounts during the Tour or (which I find more plausible) they came from re-infused blood drawn at a time when he used Clenbuterol to loose weight.

Alberto had a test done a couple of days before the positive test and nothing came up. That means that, if he took something, whatever he took, was small enough for it to not be detected by the super-duper testing facilities they now have. That story about the blood bag and everything else is merely gossip that is percolated to the media in order to build up a public credibility case they otherwise wouldn't have.

I can't really see a reason why that Clen would've been in his system other than doping.

Well, you're wrong. Come to the US and take a test after you've had a nice, juicy, steak. I can guarantee you'll test positive for, at least, 3 banned substances.

It's possible he got it from tainted meat but it seems unlikely when considering the tests the EU does on cattle and the fact (from the WADA report) that farmers would wait for the Clen to clear out if the animals had it in them.

Again, that's a posibility, but unless they can prove that that's the case that's "unadmissible evidence" from where I'm standing.

Let me put it this way. It's possible that Contador is clean but it's also possible he doped.

Precisely. And that's where the "innocent until PROVEN guilty" part comes in.

Now which seems more likely? If you would have to bet 1000 euros of your own money, which would you choose?

Alberto is innocent.

 

[Wallace]

Kimmage is also disparaging about Contador's justification for his Clenbuterol positive test at this year's Tour de France.

"His excuse that his meat was contaminated is laughable. It's a ****ing insult to our intelligence," he says.

"After the Dauphiné Libéré I couldn't see how he could improve so much in time for the Tour. He wasn't the same guy we'd seen in the past and had a lot to do. But he got there and won the Tour but then tested positive for Clenbuterol..."

"Now I'm not a man of science but for me the key to it was the day of the test. When I found out it was on the second rest day, that was the give away for me."