Contador acquitted

[Merckx index]

I am not a fan but I have made a lot of posts in his corner, simply because I think this thread needs ppl who play the devil's advocate and argue from the other side of the fence. to many ppl argue very simple mindedly that "trace clen = 2 year ban. No discussion needed, because thats the rule". They forget that the there are alot more to the rules than that.

That is supposed to be the rule, and riders and other athletes who have cases at least as good as Bert's, sometimes considerably better cases, have been forced to swallow a suspension. You have to be willfully blind not to see favoritism here. If you want to play devil's advocate, argue that he is innocent on the basis of science, not just to balance the discussion.

Ofcourse. And that is why I hope it goes to CAS. And then we should taccept any verdic CAS ends up with. If CAS says he is innocent, then he is innocent. If not then he gets his punishment.

If you mean by accept, we should not burn down CAS's offices in protest, fine. That we should not sulk and moan and groan forever after, beginning every post in this forum with "Bert is a cheat", no problem. But if you mean by that, we should conclude they made the right decision, that if they say Bert is innocent, we should conclude they're right, no thanks. If they provide science in support of the contamination theory, which thus far no one has done publicly, then I might support his innocence. But if they don't come up with something a lot better than what was in the RFEC decision that was made available, no way.

 

[GJB123]

But if they don't come up with something a lot better than what was in the RFEC decision that was made available, no way.

So if I understand correctly, everyone is entitled to your opinion.

Regards
GJ

 

[lean mean &green]

So if I understand correctly, everyone is entitled to your opinion.

Regards
GJ

i think it's safe to say you do not understand correctly.

 

[Merckx index]

So if I understand correctly, everyone is entitled to your opinion.

Regards
GJ

I said I am not going to accept a decision of no sanction on the basis of what I've seen up to now. You're welcome to your opinion. But if it differs from mine, and you post it here, don't be surprised if I ask you to defend it. Your posts are at least as opinionated as mine, so I find this comment of yours odd, to say the least.

 

[Cimber]

That is supposed to be the rule, and riders and other athletes who have cases at least as good as Bert's, sometimes considerably better cases, have been forced to swallow a suspension. You have to be willfully blind not to see favoritism here. If you want to play devil's advocate, argue that he is innocent on the basis of science, not just to balance the discussion.
.

No the rule is not that simple. I mean there is the strict liability rule but there is also a clause which will exempt the rider from it (this has already been discussed). As far as I have understood Berti's defense they feel they have proved that there is no way clen could have entered his body from "faul play" (i.e they ruled out blood doping etc). Now I dotn say that their claims/evidence is good enough. RFEC believed it was, but I wont be 100% convinced till CAS will conclude the same.

I have several times stated that I am not gonna judge if he is innocent is not. I am not a scientist or a lawyer and I (or any1 else in this thread) havent got access to all the information in the case. I too am not convinced by RFEC's independence (though Evalds evaluation made me a little less suspecious.) But I do believe in CAS, and I will accept, trust and believe in any verdict they will end up with.

If you mean by accept, we should not burn down CAS's offices in protest, fine. That we should not sulk and moan and groan forever after, beginning every post in this forum with "Bert is a cheat", no problem. But if you mean by that, we should conclude they made the right decision, that if they say Bert is innocent, we should conclude they're right, no thanks. If they provide science in support of the contamination theory, which thus far no one has done publicly, then I might support his innocence. But if they don't come up with something a lot better than what was in the RFEC decision that was made available, no way.

Look at it this way: CAS will not aquit Berti unless he is truly innocent. But what saddens me is that alot of ppl wont believe in there aquitance (if that will be the verdict) simply beause they personally wanna see Berti fried. No pun intended, but do u really think you would be able to do a better job than CAS? I know I wouldnt which is why I will happily follow whatever verdict they will end up with. However, you r ofcourse entitled to feel differently, I wont eat yoru lunch for that, I just think its sad if ppl dont trust CAS.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

I just think its sad if ppl dont trust CAS.

I have not read anyone saying they do not trust CAS.

Posters have been discussing how and why RFEC decided not to sanction Contador based solely on his evidence that allegedly he ate a steak with Clen traces still in it?

No one here that i am aware of has seen an official English translation of Contador's 'evidence', of which there is none because he ate it, but his argument why he cannot be banned.

I think most poster's are looking forward to reading RFEC's explanation for not banning Contador and then seeing CAS give him 2 years.

 

[Merckx index]

No the rule is not that simple. I mean there is the strict liability rule but there is also a clause which will exempt the rider from it (this has already been discussed). As far as I have understood Berti's defense they feel they have proved that there is no way clen could have entered his body from "faul play" (i.e they ruled out blood doping etc). Now I dotn say that their claims/evidence is good enough. RFEC believed it was, but I wont be 100% convinced till CAS will conclude the same.

Fair enough.

Look at it this way: CAS will not aquit Berti unless he is truly innocent. But what saddens me is that alot of ppl wont believe in there aquitance (if that will be the verdict) simply beause they personally wanna see Berti fried. No pun intended, but do u really think you would be able to do a better job than CAS? I know I wouldnt which is why I will happily follow whatever verdict they will end up with. However, you r ofcourse entitled to feel differently, I wont eat yoru lunch for that, I just think its sad if ppl dont trust CAS.

I certainly trust CAS more than I trust RFEC. If they are as transparent about the decision-making process with Bert as they were with Floyd, then I think all the stuff we haven't heard about Bert's arguments will be available. I will come to my own conclusions based on that.

I don't think there are that many people who want to see Bert lose no matter what. Some yes, but I think they are a minority on this forum. I think the main problem is that based on what we have seen so far, this contaminated meat scenario is really grasping for straws. I feel very confident in saying that it is virtually impossible that he ate meat that did not pass the CB testing standard. The only possible out I see for him is if he can prove that that standard is not good enough to prevent doping positives. IOW, cattle can pass the test and still have enough CB in them to result in the levels he tested for. I think this is unlikely, but it is not entirely out of the question. The science is potentially complex, and I'm looking forward to the arguments for it, because I really think they are critical.

There is other stuff, such as the argument that a CB positive would not result from a transfusion, but I think that is less important. While I'm curious to see what Bert's team actually has, I doubt it is compelling. And I think that argument would have to be iron-clad if they lack evidence supporting contaminated meat. IMO, they have to prove one or the other to a very high degree, and I will respect any decision from CAS only if they follow the same approach.

 

[Publicus]

Fair enough.



I certainly trust CAS more than I trust RFEC. If they are as transparent about the decision-making process with Bert as they were with Floyd, then I think all the stuff we haven't heard about Bert's arguments will be available. I will come to my own conclusions based on that.

I don't think there are that many people who want to see Bert lose no matter what. Some yes, but I think they are a minority on this forum. I think the main problem is that based on what we have seen so far, this contaminated meat scenario is really grasping for straws. I feel very confident in saying that it is virtually impossible that he ate meat that did not pass the CB testing standard. The only possible out I see for him is if he can prove that that standard is not good enough to prevent doping positives. IOW, cattle can pass the test and still have enough CB in them to result in the levels he tested for. I think this is unlikely, but it is not entirely out of the question. The science is potentially complex, and I'm looking forward to the arguments for it, because I really think they are critical.

There is other stuff, such as the argument that a CB positive would not result from a transfusion, but I think that is less important. While I'm curious to see what Bert's team actually has, I doubt it is compelling. And I think that argument would have to be iron-clad if they lack evidence supporting contaminated meat. IMO, they have to prove one or the other to a very high degree, and I will respect any decision from CAS only if they follow the same approach.

Just curious, how do you feel about the Ovtcharov case? Are you equally as dubious about his argument and why? And just to lay my cards on the table, I see AC's case and the handling by RFEC, from a legal theory, to be essentially the same as Ovtcharov's, so I'm trying to understand how folks who are critical of the legal theory advanced in AC's case, find it persuasive in Ovtcharov's case.

 

[Andynonomous]

Trust is earned.

Contador says the UCI and Wada should "trust us" (RFEC and Contador's lawyers).

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/01/sports-cyc-doping-contador_8331719.html


Odd, Rafael Nadal (Spanish tennis player) says the same thing (he says there are no drugs in tennis, and the testing for PEDs is not necessary).


Who do these guys think they are fooling ?

 

[Andynonomous]

Propoganda.

Just curious, how do you feel about the Ovtcharov case? Are you equally as dubious about his argument and why? And just to lay my cards on the table, I see AC's case and the handling by RFEC, from a legal theory, to be essentially the same as Ovtcharov's, so I'm trying to understand how folks who are critical of the legal theory advanced in AC's case, find it persuasive in Ovtcharov's case.

There is one very small difference between the 2 cases :
Ovtcharov probably did ingest tainted meat.
Contador almost certainly did not.


Do you think that by repeating that they are almost the same, over and over, that we are going to buy your argument ?

 

[sniper]

Contador says the UCI and Wada should "trust us" (RFEC and Contador's lawyers).

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/01/sports-cyc-doping-contador_8331719.html


Odd, Rafael Nadal (Spanish tennis player) says the same thing (he says there are no drugs in tennis, and the testing for PEDs is not necessary).


Who do these guys think they are fooling ?

good question.

It's like Bill Clinton saying Lewinski never suckled his balls.
I mean, who buys that, really?

 

[Publicus]

There is one very small difference between the 2 cases :
Ovtcharov probably did ingest tainted meat.
Contador almost certainly did not.


Do you think that by repeating that they are almost the same, over and over, that we are going to buy your argument ?

I don't think I directed my comment at you and I have this sinking feeling you are the resident troll, but I'll respond anyway. So to summarize: (1) Ovtcharov probably did and Contador definitely didn't. Thanks. That clears it up....

In all seriousness, is it that folks presume that because the EU bans the use of CB in livestock and China does not, that Ovtcharov's case is more plausible than AC's? In neither case did the athlete produce the tainted meat and, based on what I understand about both cases, both relied on elimination of other plausible reasons it could have entered their systems to leave food contamination. So from a legal theory stand point, I can't understand why that theory is acceptable in one case, but not in another.

 

[D-Queued]

Contador says the UCI and Wada should "trust us" (RFEC and Contador's lawyers).

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/01/sports-cyc-doping-contador_8331719.html


Odd, Rafael Nadal (Spanish tennis player) says the same thing (he says there are no drugs in tennis, and the testing for PEDs is not necessary).


Who do these guys think they are fooling ?

The UCI does trust Bert. They let him, and countless numbers of other cyclists, join without any sort of criminal record check.

Dave.

 

[sniper]

snip

Who do these guys think they are fooling ?

..................

I don't think I directed my comment at you and I have this sinking feeling you are the resident troll, but I'll respond anyway. So to summarize: (1) Ovtcharov probably did and Contador definitely didn't. Thanks. That clears it up....

In all seriousness, is it that folks presume that because the EU bans the use of CB in livestock and China does not, that Ovtcharov's case is more plausible than AC's? In neither case did the athlete produce the tainted meat and, based on what I understand about both cases, both relied on elimination of other plausible reasons it could have entered their systems to leave food contamination. So from a legal theory stand point, I can't understand why that theory is acceptable in one case, but not in another.

Publicus, where's AC's hairtest?
Ovcharov had one. It came out negative.

 

[Publicus]

..................



Publicus, where's AC's hairtest?
Ovcharov had one. It came out negative.

Why would AC need one when he had far more controls over the course of 2010 leading up to the TdF and during the TdF? Ovtcharov had no such tests to point to, so he had to do a hair test. It's part of the reason I think AC's argument is actually stronger than Ovtcharov's. He's got one negative test he can point to, AC has multiple and a bio-passport that to my limited knowledge, has shown no irregularities.

 

[Andynonomous]

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

I don't think I directed my comment at you and I have this sinking feeling you are the resident troll, but I'll respond anyway. So to summarize: (1) Ovtcharov probably did and Contador definitely didn't. Thanks. That clears it up....

In all seriousness, is it that folks presume that because the EU bans the use of CB in livestock and China does not, that Ovtcharov's case is more plausible than AC's? In neither case did the athlete produce the tainted meat and, based on what I understand about both cases, both relied on elimination of other plausible reasons it could have entered their systems to leave food contamination. So from a legal theory stand point, I can't understand why that theory is acceptable in one case, but not in another.

The differences between the cases have been listed here ad nauseum.

Ovtcharov -

In China where Clenbuterol use in beef is MUCH higher than the EU.

Took a hair test to prove no long term use.

Had no "rumours" of a plasticizer positive.


Yet, you and Contador's other propogandists keep trying to equate the two cases, simply because they both tested positive for Clenbuterol, and are claiming accidental ingestion. When you are challenged that the two are different, you finally acknowledge that the two locales may have something to do with the cases being different (although you try to minimize those differences), but fail to mention the other differences.



It's not me that comes on here and deliberately distorts the truth, so it isn't me that is the troll.

 

[Andynonomous]

Trust but don't verify.

The UCI does trust Bert. They let him, and countless numbers of other cyclists, join without any sort of criminal record check.

Dave.

Then why do they test all of the competitors for PEDs ?

It's called "trust but verify". Since Contador tested positive, he no longer deserves trust (unless he can PROVE it wasn't his fault, which he clearly hasn't). Not to mention Spain's actions (politicians, doctors, athletes, sporting authorities,...) have proven that Spanish athletes cannot be trusted.

 

[Publicus]

The differences between the cases have been listed here ad nauseum.

Ovtcharov -

In China where Clenbuterol use in beef is MUCH higher than the EU.

Took a hair test to prove no long term use.

Had no "rumours" of a plasticizer positive.


Yet, you and Contador's other propogandists keep trying to equate the two cases, simply because they both tested positive for Clenbuterol, and are claiming accidental ingestion. When you are challenged that the two are different, you finally acknowledge that the two locales may have something to do with the cases being different (although you try to minimize those differences), but fail to mention the other differences.



It's not me that comes on here and deliberately distorts the truth, so it isn't me that is the troll.

I'm only focusing on the legal theory underpinning both cases (proof of accidental ingestation by elimination of other possibilities). If the legal theory is plausible in the Ovtcharov's case, then it is a plausible in AC's case. As for the differences between EU and China, that's part of the argument that AC's camp would have to make to account for in making their argument under this theory, and I think that is a high hurdle under the circumstances.

That's the only equivocation I am making--legal theories underpinning case. Every case has its own factual record, which I am not in any way disputing. But thanks for your response.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The differences between the cases have been listed here ad nauseum.

Ovtcharov -

In China where Clenbuterol use in beef is MUCH higher than the EU.

Took a hair test to prove no long term use.

Had no "rumours" of a plasticizer positive.

Is a ping-pong player.

Yet, you and Contador's other propogandists keep trying to equate the two cases, simply because they both tested positive for Clenbuterol, and are claiming accidental ingestion. When you are challenged that the two are different, you finally acknowledge that the two locales may have something to do with the cases being different (although you try to minimize those differences), but fail to mention the other differences.



It's not me that comes on here and deliberately distorts the truth, so it isn't me that is the troll.

Fixed that omission for you.
Do any of you Contador fanboys really think that there is any less smoke visible above Contador's dope fire than any of the other top riders?
Whether or not you want to see him race this year (and I do) he does the same "preparation" that all the top GT contenders must do, he just got caught, accidentally.

 

[jraama]

Does biopassport testing look for clen?

This may be answered somewhere else, and if so I apologize for the redundancy. When a sample is taken specifically for the biopassport, is it checked for PEDs, including clen? And are the results of all blood tests taken (in and out of competition) entered into the biopassport system for each rider?
Thanks

 

[D-Queued]

Then why do they test all of the competitors for PEDs ?

It's called "trust but verify". Since Contador tested positive, he no longer deserves trust (unless he can PROVE it wasn't his fault, which he clearly hasn't). Not to mention Spain's actions (politicians, doctors, athletes, sporting authorities,...) have proven that Spanish athletes cannot be trusted.

I don't know why Spanish athletes deserve more focus than others.

And, the UCI DOES NOT test all of the competitors for PEDs. In fact, we know that they deliberately avoid testing for EPO even when they have strong Biopassport indicators.

This may be answered somewhere else, and if so I apologize for the redundancy. When a sample is taken specifically for the biopassport, is it checked for PEDs, including clen? And are the results of all blood tests taken (in and out of competition) entered into the biopassport system for each rider?
Thanks

See above. No, they do not test for PEDs.

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm only focusing on the legal theory underpinning both cases (proof of accidental ingestation by elimination of other possibilities). If the legal theory is plausible in the Ovtcharov's case, then it is a plausible in AC's case.

1. the cases are not 'the same.' Regardless of how many times you are corrected, you reply as if they are. No matter how much you want it to be so, they are not the same.

2. The conditions leading up to the application of the legal theory are not the same. Yet you ignore that vital detail to keep on laboring over the same failed discussion.

The obviousness of the circumstances will not change. It's time to admit failure and recalibrate your position.

 

[Publicus]

1. the cases are not 'the same.' Regardless of how many times you are corrected, you reply as if they are. No matter how much you want it to be so, they are not the same.

2. The conditions leading up to the application of the legal theory are not the same. Yet you ignore that vital detail to keep on laboring over the same failed discussion.

The obviousness of the circumstances will not change. It's time to admit failure and recalibrate your position.

1. Ok, so can you explain the differences between the two legal theories advanced by Ovtcharov and Contador. Because as far as I can tell, they are exactly the same.

2. I haven't argued about conditions leading up to either case, since each case provides its own facts.

But I will take your advice (at least partially). I'll admit that this is a futile exercise--searching for a reasoned discussion on the original point. No need for further responses (even to my invitation above).

 

[sniper]

1. the cases are not 'the same.' Regardless of how many times you are corrected, you reply as if they are. No matter how much you want it to be so, they are not the same.

2. The conditions leading up to the application of the legal theory are not the same. Yet you ignore that vital detail to keep on laboring over the same failed discussion.

The obviousness of the circumstances will not change. It's time to admit failure and recalibrate your position.

That's asking a hell of a lot of someone with blinders on.

 

[Publicus]

That's asking a hell of a lot of someone with blinders on.

Eyes are wide open my friend. You folks are the ones with your noses to the grindstone here. I was just trying to draw out the discussion on the legal theories. Not propound AC's innocence (which I've never done). I'm trying to sort through the conjecture get a better understanding of the logic behind those who see a clear distinction between the decision in the Ovtcharov case and AC. What I've gathered from implication is (1) EU has testing and China doesn't and (2) hair follicle test was negative.