ContadorÂ’s legal team hit back at WADA report

[Señor_Contador]

Blood? .............

Right, but the plasticizers test has already been thrown out due to it's creator going public and indirectly speaking against its use in sports.

So, the blood does not count because the plasticizers test is not valid.

The clenbuterol positive does not count because 50 picograms is a joke.

What else?

Come on, pull something out the hat folks!

 

[Señor_Contador]

It doesnt matter where the clen came from. Its still illegal.

"Illegal" to whom?

 

[Benotti69]

...
So you're technically saying that there was something else in the supposed transfusion bag?? What exactly??

Blood baby

 

[biopass]

"Illegal" to whom?

Are you serious?

50 picogram of clen is 50 picogram of banned substance.

 

[Señor_Contador]

Are you serious?

50 picogram of clen is 50 picogram of banned substance.

"Banned" is one thing. "Illegal" is quite another.

I'm beginning to think some of you have very little idea of what you're talking about and are just repeating slogans...

 

[Oldman]

"Illegal" to whom?

The rules of the contract the riders signed with UCI. It's the biopassport, baby and it means Alberto has a positive A & B sample. That is the legal process and it now moves to the disciplinary phase. You don't like it but you and I don't count. Alberto signed the deal, complete with it's fine points because he liked the money. That he didn't plan for the sensitivity of testing levels when he planned his program is irrelevant.

 

[Señor_Contador]

The rules of the contract the riders signed with UCI. It's the biopassport, baby and it means Alberto has a positive A & B sample. That is the legal process and it now moves to the disciplinary phase. You don't like it but you and I don't count. Alberto signed the deal, complete with it's fine points because he liked the money. That he didn't plan for the sensitivity of testing levels when he planned his program is irrelevant.

Another one...

"Legal" is one thing. Rules and regulations sanctioned by a governing body is and entirely different animal.

Pffff.

You guys have no friggin idea, do ya?

 

[Barrus]

Another one...

"Legal" is one thing. Rules and regulations sanctioned by a governing body is and entirely different animal.

Pffff.

You guys have no friggin idea, do ya?

Neither do you

 

[Señor_Contador]

Neither do you

And... I rest my case.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And... I rest my case.

Somehow we doubt you will.

Clen is a prohibited substance - with no threshold.
Contador has been given due process (more than Fuyu Li) - which returned a positive A&B sample.
It's an Adverse Analytical Finding - now it is up to AC to suggest how the Clen got in his system or otherwise he is facing 2 years suspension.

 

[Altitude]

Right, but the plasticizers test has already been thrown out due to it's creator going public and indirectly speaking against its use in sports.

So, the blood does not count because the plasticizers test is not valid.

The clenbuterol positive does not count because 50 picograms is a joke.

What else?

Come on, pull something out the hat folks!

Doesn't matter about the plasticizers, transfusion is still the most (the only) plausible explanation. Regardless, the damage is done-- your hero has fallen. I hope it actually was from contaminated meat and that he still gets 2 years-- he deserves it.

 

[Oldman]

Another one...

"Legal" is one thing. Rules and regulations sanctioned by a governing body is and entirely different animal.

Pffff.

You guys have no friggin idea, do ya?

The contract is a legal document, hence the term. In exchange for the right to race within the UCI regulated events, Alberto Contador agrees to abide by the rules. In exchange he can contract his services for large sums of money. If he fails required tests (the A & B sample) he will be sanctioned an unable to race UCI events. That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand, now should it?

This isn't a criminal case it is a civil matter. He has the burden to prove otherwise and he gets to sit, without income; until he provides a compelling amount of proof otherwise. There is no graduated scale for his guilt.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It is very interesting to watch a Contador fanboy go as what we are used to from the Armstrong fanboys.

 

[Señor_Contador]

Doesn't matter about the plasticizers, transfusion is still the most (the only) plausible explanation.[...]

Sure, but proving that there was a transfusion is going to be mighty difficult without Jordi Segura's backing. And as they say, "no body, no case". Thus no plasticizer test, no plasticizer positive. Hence no transfusion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sure, but proving that there was a transfusion is going to be mighty difficult without Jordi Segura's backing. And as they say, "no body, no case". Thus no plasticizer test, no plasticizer positive. Hence no transfusion.

Again - WADA, UCI or RFEC do not have to prove their case. They have the positive A&B for a prohibited substance.

It is Contador who has to show 'No (Significant) Fault or Negligence'.

 

[Barrus]

Sure, but proving that there was a transfusion is going to be mighty difficult without Jordi Segura's backing. And as they say, "no body, no case". Thus no plasticizer test, no plasticizer positive. Hence no transfusion.

Plasticizer test should not be of any consequence, he should get at least 1 year suspension due to his Clen positive. In all probability they won't even use that test in the assesment of his suspension, if they do, only as supporting evidence and not as the main reason. He still has the banned substance in his blood, which is enough to suspend him.

Also the mantra "no body, no case" is completely faulty. It is also quite fun that there are oter researcher that say that the test can be used in sports and could prove very valuable in sports. But still this is not of real consequence in the Contador case, mainly because of the fact that the test is still not validated by WADA and because the UCI would be very scared to lose all their top riders in one year. (could you imagine if all the samples would be tested for this. God, the top 10 of the giro, tour and vuelta would at least be banned from the sport)

 

[webvan]

Again - WADA, UCI or RFEC do not have to prove their case. They have the positive A&B for a prohibited substance.

It is Contador who has to show 'No (Significant) Fault or Negligence'.

And even so, would he get off? Look at all the guys who got suspended because they'd unknowingly taken banned substances via dietary supplements...

 

[Señor_Contador]

The contract is a legal document, hence the term. In exchange for the right to race within the UCI regulated events, Alberto Contador agrees to abide by the rules. In exchange he can contract his services for large sums of money. If he fails required tests (the A & B sample) he will be sanctioned an unable to race UCI events. That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand, now should it?

This isn't a criminal case it is a civil matter. He has the burden to prove otherwise and he gets to sit, without income; until he provides a compelling amount of proof otherwise. There is no graduated scale for his guilt.

Ah you see, now you're singing a different tune.

Anyhow, it's not the term "legal" that I'm concerned about, it's the context per se. You mentioned "legal process" in exchange for "internal proceedings". The saction or the process itself would be "legal" or "illegal" only if Alberto breaks his contract with Saxo, decides to punch a person, stabs McQuaid with a knife, et cetera. If he decides not to pee in a cup, skip a test, or break any other internal UCI rule he is taking a sanctionable action, which has nothing to do with legality.

Alberto's relation to the UCI is merely a sanctioning/disciplinary relationship, thus it cannot be "legal" or "ilegal".

 

[Barrus]

Ah you see, now you're singing a different tune.

Anyhow, it's not the term "legal" that I'm concerned about, it's the context per se. You mentioned "legal process" in exchange for "internal proceedings". The saction or the process itself would be "legal" or "illegal" only if Alberto breaks his contract with Saxo, decides to punch a person, stabs McQuaid with a knife, et cetera. If he decides not to pee in a cup, skip a test, or break any other internal UCI rule he is taking a sanctionable action, which has nothing to do with legality.

Alberto's relation to the UCI is merely a sanctioning/disciplinary relationship, thus it cannot be "legal" or "ilegal".

The problem with this however is that they are acknowledged as legal proceedings, these sport proceedings. By regular judicial authorities, if I'm not mistaken these sport proceedings even need to follow art. 6 ECHR for fair proceedings

 

[Polish]

It is very interesting to watch a Contador fanboy go as "Full ***" as what we are used to from the Armstrong fanboys.

Excuse me?

The Contador Fanboys are still riding with training wheels for god's sake.
We Lance fanboys have 10 plus years of SSDD under our wheels.
No comparision bucko.

Same goes for the contadoper haters.
They have about .00005 as much obsession as the Pharmstrong Haters.

 

[El Pistolero]

http://www.hbvl.be/nieuws/sport/wie...vlees-van-contador-komt-uit-zuid-amerika.aspx

I soo predicted he would use the meat came from South-America excuse here xD

 

[Señor_Contador]

The problem with this however is that they are acknowledged as legal proceedings, these sport proceedings. By regular judicial authorities, if I'm not mistaken these sport proceedings even need to follow art. 6 ECHR for fair proceedings

Well it is a "legal proceeding" as much as a barber cutting your hair is a "legal proceeding" because you went to school and got the diploma from a "legal" institution or a "legal" person. It is only within this context that it take on its appropriate dimension. It is not OK to make mention of a "legal process" when talking about sanctioning Cyclist x to insinuate some sort of acquiescence on the part of the "judicial authorities". Alberto has a right to seek intermediation from the "judicial authorities" it he deems the sanction against him contradict the Laws of the Land. Even if his contract specifies that he must abide to the UCI's rules.

Moreover, getting the "fair proceeding" rubber stamp does not mean the "judicial authorities" are taking over and agreeing to everything you say. It basically means that you are accepting their authority and that your process is in line with their fair proceedings articles, that's all. The "legal" in "legal proceedings" as applied to the UCI's sanctioning actions has as much legality in it, as described in this case, as "federal" in Federal Express.

 

[Oldman]

Ah you see, now you're singing a different tune.

Anyhow, it's not the term "legal" that I'm concerned about, it's the context per se. You mentioned "legal process" in exchange for "internal proceedings". The saction or the process itself would be "legal" or "illegal" only if Alberto breaks his contract with Saxo, decides to punch a person, stabs McQuaid with a knife, et cetera. If he decides not to pee in a cup, skip a test, or break any other internal UCI rule he is taking a sanctionable action, which has nothing to do with legality.

Alberto's relation to the UCI is merely a sanctioning/disciplinary relationship, thus it cannot be "legal" or "ilegal".

No, same tune. You are defining anything "illegal" as a criminal act rather than a breach of contract (you even confuse yourself because a breach with Saxo is a similar "legal" event to his failed PED test). Criminal acts are illegal. A civil contract is a legal relationship and the terms that remedy failures of those contracts are also legal activities.
You may not like the chain of mitigation and we agree there. The UCI and Spanish federations like to bend the rules too much.

 

[Señor_Contador]

No, same tune. You are defining anything "illegal" as a criminal act rather than a breach of contract (you even confuse yourself because a breach with Saxo is a similar "legal" event to his failed PED test). Criminal acts are illegal. A civil contract is a legal relationship and the terms that remedy failures of those contracts are also legal activities.
You may not like the chain of mitigation and we agree there. The UCI and Spanish federations like to bend the rules too much.

I'm not defining or redefining anything. I am merely pointing out how inapproppriate the use of the adjetive "illegal" is when describing a substance that is specifically banned by WADA. WADA does not have the power to make the (ab)use of certain substance legal or illegal. Only The Law can do that.

The only thing WADA can do is ban a substance. Once the cyclist test positive the only thing the UCI can do is sanction the cyclist.

There's no prohibition, no (il)legality, no punishment, et cetera. The only thing these people can do is ruin your career or drag your face through the mud (aside from not allowing you to participate on races the UCI sanctions).

 

[Señor_Contador]

No, same tune. You are defining anything "illegal" as a criminal act rather than a breach of contract (you even confuse yourself because a breach with Saxo is a similar "legal" event to his failed PED test). Criminal acts are illegal. A civil contract is a legal relationship and the terms that remedy failures of those contracts are also legal activities.
You may not like the chain of mitigation and we agree there. The UCI and Spanish federations like to bend the rules too much.

No, a breach with Saxo is an illegal act only to be intermediated by The Law. The UCI cannot intermediate between Contador and Saxo Bank on contractual matters precisely because it is not its jurisdiction. Alberto failing a drug test or refusing to be tested are sanctionable acts. Two different things. Hence the absurdity of referring to something as "illegal" when a "banned" fits a lot better.