Contador acquitted

[Señor_Contador]

/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
Are you accusing people of racism? If so you can get the hell out right now. Hating cheaters crosses all national boundaries.



I would love it if CONI continued their practice of keeping Spain's house in order for them. Does the Tour de France pass in to Italy this year?

Because, of course, CONI have turned Italy in the cleanest place around, dopin-wise.

CONI can diddly-squat in this case. They can try, but I can guarantee you no Italian cyclist will be able to do the Vuelta for a few centuries if they do.

 

[Publicus]

In this case, as far as we know, a ban would be most appropriate, he had a substance in his test sample and there was strict liability, it is only right he would be banned.

I agree with you in principal. Im curious to sees the basis and if they (RFEC) relied on existing precedent/WADA code. If they did, then I wonder how they go about convincing CAS that the decision is incorrect. I'm not familiar with CAS procedures, does anyone know if they view each appeal as a matter of first impression (and thus draw their own factual record) or do they limit themselves to the record presented and the particular question being appealed?

 

[sublimit]

Senor_ Contador probably has a signed poster of General Franco on his bedroom wall... what an idiot.

 

[python]

i have a question for our users from spain…

what is the mechanism for the 4-person disciplinary committee decision-making ? Is it a simple majority or does it have to be unanimous like in some jury systems ?

for example, a 3-man panel associated with any cas proceedings may render a simple majority decision, 2-1.

 

[Cloxxki]

Amen to the CONI remarks. What about this year's TdF?

Ah, the Barcelona Olympics in '92...when a Dutch runner managed to peak to gold...

 

[Met de Versnelling]

Because, of course, CONI have turned Italy in the cleanest place around, dopin-wise.

CONI can diddly-squat in this case. They can try, but I can guarantee you no Italian cyclist will be able to do the Vuelta for a few centuries if they do.

Yeah. That's why CONI are pretty much the only reason Valverde finally went down isn't it.

Oh. And then the same year Piti goes down, an Italian wins the Vuelta.

Take the blinkers off mate...

 

[la.margna]

Floyd, I always told you, the testosterone came from the steak in la Toussuire!

 

[Señor_Contador]

If this entire discussion means what I think it means, do understand that we do not condone such behaviour here

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just asking the man a simple question.

 

[sniper]

word has it, the RFEC are referring to Ovtcharov as a parallel case.

which, indeed, would be ridiculous if AC never did a hairtest.

 

[Jamsque]

CONI has by no means an exemplary record in anti-doping, and they certainly didn't go after Di Luca with the aggressiveness I would have liked, but they are not by a long stretch guilty of the same kind of organised protection of their own riders that the RFEC seems to be engaged in, and I admire their courage in going after Valverde regardless of whether their motives were political or altruistic.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just asking the man a simple question.

Don't play coy, you were insinuating that 'the man' was prejudiced against Spanish riders because he was not a native Spaniard, and you were not subtle about it. That is a bold accusation to make, not to mention an incredibly rude one, and since you do not have a shred of evidence to back it up I suggest you eat humble pie and drop it.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

CONI has by no means an exemplary record in anti-doping, and they certainly didn't go after Di Luca with the aggressiveness I would have liked, but they are not by a long stretch guilty of the same kind of organised protection of their own riders that the RFEC seems to be engaged in, and I admire their courage in going after Valverde regardless of whether their motives were political or altruistic.

Hear, hear, well said.

Actually, you just made me think. What the hell is going on with RFEC and Mosquera?

 

[Master50]

I hope Li gets a review of his ban. Strict liability in China makes a lot of food suspect as it might in South America.

 

[Barrus]

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just asking the man a simple question.

You do realize that not owning up to your mistakes reflect very negatively on you and will ensure that the enxt time you do something that is contrary to what is expected and allowed on this forum, I will not be lenient when deciding what to do. SO you have a chance to reflect upon your statement and perhaps chance your position and your stance

 

[la.margna]

Because, of course, CONI have turned Italy in the cleanest place around, dopin-wise.

CONI can diddly-squat in this case. They can try, but I can guarantee you no Italian cyclist will be able to do the Vuelta for a few centuries if they do.

Can you please return to a fact based discussion and take off your nationalist glasses? This is not about Spanish or Italian, it's about rotting out the cheaters. And some federations and organisations have actively fought against doping while others close their eyes or even seem to support a culture of cheating and doping. Unfortunately, Spain's actions during the recent years place them in the latter group.

 

[Jamsque]

What the hell is going on with RFEC and Mosquera?

This is a little OT, but I admit I have been wondering about that myself lately. He hasn't raced since the Vuelta, but he doesn't seem to have been suspended either and I am pretty sure he is 'active' on Vacansoleil's roster. Maybe they are hoping if they ignore the problem for long enough people will forget he tested positive?

 

[Publicus]

awaiting to hear what were the two specific arguments brought forward by the contador's team that resulted in the reversal.

as i mention one hundred times already, i cant understand why those two 'saving' arguments (submitted within a 10-day appeal window) could not be brought forward with the original submission to the disciplinary committe.

what could have happened in the 10 days that was not settled 6 months earlier ? strange.

Could it have something to do with the basis of RFEC's decision? In light of the fact that (and I'm paraphrasing) they found that he didn't intentionally ingest the clen, they argued (based on media reports) that WADA code permits a finding of no liability where the party was not negligent in his actions that resulted in the substance entering his body. Of course I'm just speculating. Does anyone know if the documents filed by the relevant parties (AC, RFEC, UCI, WADA) will be available at some point (I'm not going to ask if they will be in English, though that would be helpful)

 

[icefire]

i have a question for our users from spain…

what is the mechanism for the 4-person disciplinary committee decision-making ? Is it a simple majority or does it have to be unanimous like in some jury systems ?

for example, a 3-man panel associated with any cas proceedings may render a simple majority decision, 2-1.

I don't know the details in this particular case, but rulings in the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court are made based on simple majority. The president of the decision making body has what hey call a 'quality vote' that decides in case of tie. I don't know of any case in those courts requiring unanimous vote.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

This is a little OT, but I admit I have been wondering about that myself lately. He hasn't raced since the Vuelta, but he doesn't seem to have been suspended either and I am pretty sure he is 'active' on Vacansoleil's roster. Maybe they are hoping if they ignore the problem for long enough people will forget he tested positive?

Could be the case, it does seem very strange that absolutely nothing seems to have happened there, even more strange the absolute lack of coverage/announcements etc related to it. Good point about Vacan there, they clearly think he'll be fine, otherwise they would have kicked him off a'la Ricco, surely?

Or there's a more sinister possibility, and a much more OT look at it:

RFEC are using the Contador case to smokescreen them letting Zeke go. If that's the case, go RFEC, i want my little Zeke back! (Even if he did dope! )

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

The last I heard on Mosquera was that his B sample had still not been analysed.

Let's get back to Contador now, please.

Susan

edit: because I really do know how to spell....

 

[Met de Versnelling]

The last I heard on Mosquera his B sample had sitll not been analysed.

Let's get back to Contador now, please.

Susan

Okay, thanks very much for that Susan

 

[python]

Could it have something to do with the basis of RFEC's decision? In light of the fact that (and I'm paraphrasing) they found that he didn't intentionally ingest the clen, they argued (based on media reports) that WADA code permits a finding of no liability where the party was not negligent in his actions that resulted in the substance entering his body. Of course I'm just speculating. Does anyone know if the documents filed by the relevant parties (AC, RFEC, UCI, WADA) will be available at some point (I'm not going to ask if they will be in English, though that would be helpful)

the 132-page document that explained the basis for the 1-year preliminary suspension, is available on line and was posted some place here too. it's in spanish, i read some passages.

regarding the two 'killer' arguments submitted during the 10-d appeal window, aside from a politically staged explanation, i can think of only the following:

mind you, these are mere speculations...
(i) somehow increased confidence level that the blood passport did not provide evidence of blood transfusion. this could be another weighty expert opinion, or most likely, a nod from the uci (consolidating their wagons before pelli's appeal case at cas in 2-3 weeks)
(ii) ovcharov case may have given some members of disciplinary panel 2nd thoughts and more courage.
(iii) as i have covered in several threads, if the meat purchase receipt was shown to be authentic, this may give the stake contamination theory an additional notch of credibility since the coincidence of a positive tests and a teak purchase would be unlikely otherwise..perhaps some element in 'receipt authentication' process just materialized...

just brainstorming..but this all pales in comparison to a politically staged scenario.

 

[Martin]

wtf???

this is a bad joke i think.
what if you'll fail to pass a police alcohol test?
no one will accept excuse you've cleaned your teeth with too much of mouth water in the morning?
blahhh... makes me mad!!!
damned federeation. this could never happen anywhere else, just in spain.

 

[Publicus]

the 132-page document that explained the basis for the 1-year preliminary suspension, is available on line and was posted some place here too. it's in spanish, i read some passages.

regarding the two 'killer' arguments submitted during the 10-d appeal window, aside from a politically staged explanation, i can think of only the following:

mind you, these are mere speculations...
(i) somehow increased confidence level that the blood passport did not provide evidence of blood transfusion. this could be another weighty expert opinion, or most likely, a nod from the uci (consolidating their wagons before pelli's appeal case at cas in 2-3 weeks)
(ii) ovcharov case may have given some members of disciplinary panel 2nd thoughts and more courage.
(iii) as i have covered in several threads, if the meat purchase receipt was shown to be authentic, this may give the stake contamination theory an additional notch of credibility since the coincidence of a positive tests and a teak purchase would be unlikely otherwise..perhaps some element in 'receipt authentication' process just materialized...

just brainstorming..but this all pales in comparison to a politically staged scenario.

Thanks Python. Having read some of the passages of the original 132 page decision, did you find the reasoning plausible/reasonable? Or did it seem a stretch? I only ask because I cannot read Spanish and, from all indications, you are one of the more objective souls frequenting these threads. Thanks in advance.

 

[Señor_Contador]

CONI has by no means an exemplary record in anti-doping, and they certainly didn't go after Di Luca with the aggressiveness I would have liked, but they are not by a long stretch guilty of the same kind of organised protection of their own riders that the RFEC seems to be engaged in, and I admire their courage in going after Valverde regardless of whether their motives were political or altruistic.

And yet, there seems to be a disconnect between what you say and realitity, as Italy is producing just about as many doping positives as Spain, if not more.

Don't play coy, you were insinuating that 'the man' was prejudiced against Spanish riders because he was not a native Spaniard, and you were not subtle about it. That is a bold accusation to make, not to mention an incredibly rude one, and since you do not have a shred of evidence to back it up I suggest you eat humble pie and drop it.

I'm not saying the man is prejudiced against me. YOU are saying it. There's a difference.

And the reason I was asking him that question is because I want to be able to understand who in this discusion is in it for purely sportive reasons, like yourselves, and those whose post have an obvious nationalistic undertone. The later... I'd rather not waste my time with.

 

[hrotha]

the 132-page document that explained the basis for the 1-year preliminary suspension, is available on line and was posted some place here too. it's in spanish, i read some passages.

Do you mean 32-page document? The only one I've seen didn't include the defense documents the ruling was based on, so we had to take their word for it when they said the transfusion theory was "highly improbable as to be safely dismissed from a scientific point of view."