Contador acquitted

[RGScales]

What?
This:


Completely ensures the destruction of any system based on strict liability and in the case of other doping products could easily lead to defences that riders were spiked and if no-one can show evidence of the contrary they could get off

(of course I employ some hyperbole)

This is my sentiment exactly...so essentially a rider is going to have to be caught with needle is his or her arm to be sanctioned. That is exactly the message that is being sent. Could not agree more Barrus

 

[Barrus]

Not necessarily. If his defense methodically excluded all other possibilities (including a blood transfusion) then it might be reasonable proof that contamination was the only plausible explanation. Hopefully that makes sense.

Oh yes, certainly. But the question is, what is shown as conclusively, the piece as it is written could mean only that there was no proof to support these other claims, it is not written in such a manner as though the other theories were disproven, that other situations than contamination were impossible, but that these theories could not be proven to have occurred. That is at least the manner in which I interpreted this part of the story, as I said again my Spanish is nowhere near good enough to go through a court case, so I rely on these sort of statements. But if what you say is true, of course in that case I do not and can not really object.

 

[DAOTEC]

Martes, 15/2/2011, 15:33 h:
(http://elpais.com/articulo/deportes/Espana/exculpa/Contador/Tes)

Can the mods take away the ? put behind the thread please, gracias Kilimanjaro.

HIs lawyer has confirmed: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/confirmed-alberto-contador-cleared-of-clenbuterol-charges

Susan

Out of this piece:If this is the case and no appeal is made, this could set a very bad precedent.

hah, I don't think so Barrus ...

Repeat: Can the mods take away the ? put behind the thread please, gracias Kilimanjaro.

 

[c&cfan]

exactly.

he did not prove that it was the meat in a direct way, but he proved that ot could only be the meat. so? whats the problem?

p.s= he is already targetting the super trooper giro d'italia!!!

 

[RGScales]

Not necessarily. If his defense methodically excluded all other possibilities (including a blood transfusion) then it might be reasonable proof that contamination was the only plausible explanation. Hopefully that makes sense.

How could he have possibly proven that there was no transfusion? Unless he has blood values taken on a daily basis and could therefore show that there was no drop in his blood counts that would suggest that he had extracted blood previously or that there was no increase in the count to suggest an auto-transfusion. I highly doubt that that is the case.

 

[hrotha]

The problem is, how did he prove the transfusion theory isn't possible? Did he do anything but point at his biological passport values?

It seems like he's going to ride the Volta ao Algarve. I think that's a dumb move, he should wait to see what WADA and UCI do. He wouldn't want to lose the time of his ban he's already "served", would he?

 

[Señor_Contador]

[...]some pesky kid leaked details of the positive to the media.[...]

You think it was a "pesky kid" that did it????

My friend, naming positives is a very lucrative business. Many European media outlets either have moles or informants in those laboratories. And those who "sing" get a lot of money.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the elders, at those laboratories, would pass on such a cash cow (no pun intended) to the young interns.

 

[RGScales]

The problem is, how did he prove the transfusion theory isn't possible? Did he do anything but point at his biological passport values?

It seems like he's going to ride the Volta ao Algarve. I think that's a dumb move, he should wait to see what WADA and UCI do. He wouldn't want to lose the time of his ban he's already "served", would he?

HAHA I hadnt thought of that...that would be absolutely hysterical.

 

[Wallace]

I've put up with a lot of **** in the 25 or so years that I've been serious about this sport, but this is the last ****ing straw. So the authorities get to pick and choose who is guilty and who isn't? Cycling has now officially become a bad joke.

 

[c&cfan]

well.. we will have to wait hrotha.
still i am waiting for that "sniper" guy to come here and talk about the humo, the plastic stuff and the hair test for the 1000000000000th time without even realizing that he is only saying dust. it does not matters at all. even wada and uci don't care about it. how can this guy never shut up about it?

 

[BotanyBay]

Anyone very familiar with article 296 of the UCI regs? When were they written and why do they contradict the "no excuses" rule?

 

[c&cfan]

because lawyers need money for their kids.

 

[Publicus]

How could he have possibly proven that there was no transfusion? Unless he has blood values taken on a daily basis and could therefore show that there was no drop in his blood counts that would suggest that he had extracted blood previously or that there was no increase in the count to suggest an auto-transfusion. I highly doubt that that is the case.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that he could point to bio passport over the course of the year, and specifically during the TdF. Until there is a validated test to establish a blood transfusion, that's the only real proof available and given the UCI's reliance on it in the Pelzotti (sp) and other cases, I think they would be hard pressed to argue AGAINST its validity at CAS. So unless WADA validates and then re-tests AC's samples, I don't know how you prove that he did in fact have a blood transfusion. And that was always the crux of the case: contamination or blood transfusion--it was either one or the other.

Again, just my speculation and not based on any particular knowledge of the actual arguments in the case. I was just responding to the notion that Barrus advance which is (and I'm paraphrasing) that this possibility could be disastrous going forward (I guess, technically, from WADA's stand point that is probably correct).

 

[Captain_Cavman]

You think it was a "pesky kid" that did it????

My friend, naming positives is a very lucrative business. Many European media outlets either have moles or informants in those laboratories. And those who "sing" get a lot of money.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the elders, at those laboratories, would pass on such a cash cow (no pun intended) to the young interns.

So how does the Lab know it's Contador's sample? (Apologies if this has been answered before)

 

[Hugh Januss]

I've put up with a lot of **** in the 25 or so years that I've been serious about this sport, but this is the last ****ing straw. So the authorities get to pick and choose who is guilty and who isn't? Cycling has now officially become a bad joke.

Yeah that's my initial reaction too, but as somebody pointed out yesterday, if you take the TDF away from Dertie which of the guys behind him, that UCI will refuse to retest when the plasticizer test is appoved, are you gonna give it to?

 

[Ney the Viking]

Anyone very familiar with article 296 of the UCI regs? When were they written and why do they contradict the "no excuses" rule?

http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&sourc...LHqzutG0MCN8EYDEA&sig2=G8EIN3jvh5t40rGrCR8wog

Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility based
on Exceptional Circumstances
No Fault or Negligence
296. If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise
applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or
Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of a Prohibited
Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order
to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this article is applied and the period of
Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a
violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under
articles 306 to 312.
No significant Fault or Negligence
297. If a License-Holder establishes in an individual case that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence,
then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less
than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of
Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this section may be no less than 8 (eight) years.
When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as
referred to in article 21.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the
Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced.

 

[roundabout]

Anyone very familiar with article 296 of the UCI regs? When were they written and why do they contradict the "no excuses" rule?

If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of a Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under articles 306 to 312.

It seems that it's a case of finding more or less recent clenbuterol use and illegal slaughterhouses in Spain and using the biological passport the validity of which is in the process of being challenged in CAS.

Pretty shaky foundations for an acquittal if you ask me considering the strict liability doctrine.

 

[Publicus]

Anyone very familiar with article 296 of the UCI regs? When were they written and why do they contradict the "no excuses" rule?

Just venturing an opinion here, but I think in this case, he wasn't taking a supplement or acquiring meat from a non-EU country that doesn't screen for clen. So if, as I surmised, they were able to conclusively (given the state of technology) eliminate the other ways that clen could get into his body, then he can't be held liable for simply eating dinner. So while recognizing that it was in his body, it is not reasonable to expect every person to have every morsel of food he or she eats testing to make sure it is free of banned substances.

Again, just an opinion/guess.

EDIT: I see others posted the relevant section as well.

 

[Dimtick]

I've said this before and i'll say it again. This is nothing but politics. The RFEC is looking for an escape clause so that they're not the ones that take down their hown town hero. They're counting on the UCI to appeal so that the CAS will make the final decision and be the ones that take the blame of the Spanish public. When the RFEC made the first recommendation of a 1 year ban, I think they were guaging how the UCI would react. They desperately wanted the UCI to appeal and were probably panicking when the UCI said that they would accept. Luckily Contador came to the rescue and appealed it for them. Now the RFEC had no choice but to completely exonerate AC so that the UCI would have no choice but to appeal and take all responsibility away from the RFEC.
This has nothing to do with Spain protecting Spain. This is a bunch of spineless jellyfish lawyers that don't have the guts to confirm whether or not the sun is shining ("there appears to be a light like condition which would, barring unforseen conditions, indicate the existance of a non-nighttime event....")

 

[Pharazon]

screw this...

i'm done with this sport*

* it's not really a sport anymore is it??

 

[DirtyWorks]

Completely ensures the destruction of any system based on strict liability and in the case of other doping products could easily lead to defences that riders were spiked and if no-one can show evidence of the contrary they could get off

The point is they will get off if the UCI values the rider enough. That's been the point all along. The only 'due process' is the one where the UCI decides how badly they want the rider back and then the complex explanation required to get the rider back in the field. There are many rules, none of which are followed.

 

[Cobblestones]

How could he have possibly proven that there was no transfusion? Unless he has blood values taken on a daily basis and could therefore show that there was no drop in his blood counts that would suggest that he had extracted blood previously or that there was no increase in the count to suggest an auto-transfusion. I highly doubt that that is the case.

If he did blood doping it likely was a bunch of smaller transfusions spread over time to make any blood passport variation not stand out like a sore thumb over more natural fluctuations. Meaning even if there's daily data (which there isn't), it would be hard to prove a negative. The best you could do is to exclude transfusions above a certain volume.

Anyway, everybody in the sport who can put one and one together (to paraphrase Ullrich), knows Contador doped one way or another.

Maybe it goes the way of Valverde and the French step up and ban him from racing in France (the doping offense happened in France).

 

[DAOTEC]

Thank you so much Susan and Barrus for this friendly gesture.

("¿It was only asked out of uttermost respect for Contador his record of innocence¡!")

 

[Publicus]

If he did blood doping it likely was a bunch of smaller transfusions spread over time to make any blood passport variation not stand out like a sore thumb over more natural fluctuations. Meaning even if there's daily data (which there isn't), it would be hard to prove a negative. The best you could do is to exclude transfusions above a certain volume.

Anyway, everybody in the sport who can put one and one together (to paraphrase Ullrich), knows Contador doped one way or another.

Maybe it goes the way of Valverde and the French step up and ban him from racing in France (the doping offense happened in France).

I don't believe the French have any jurisdiction (and thus basis to exclude him from any races on French soil) over this particular matter since it occurred at the TdF, an international race. That being said, ASO is free to shoot itself in the foot over this one (yet again).

 

[hrotha]

The problem is, how did he prove the transfusion theory isn't possible? Did he do anything but point at his biological passport values?

I've re-read the relevant documents and it would seem this is based on a report by some experts of the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency and also of the UCI (who wrote on November 8th saying the only theory standing was the contaminated meat theory after dismissing the other ones; this is the letter Contador didn't get).