Contador acquitted

[veganrob]

Maybe someone can clear this up for me.

The time frame of withdrawing and storing blood is a question to me. AC was obviously not at his best in the DL. Would he have time to do a short cycle of clen, and whatever else to build his blood back up, then let the irregularities go back to normal so as not to test positive, draw blood to infuse at later date?

Is he not tested shortly before TdF? It just seems the time line for all this to happen is really tight and risky.

Thanks in advance. I gotta go ride to work.

 

[sniper]

AC adds a French lawyer (Jean-Louis Dupont) to his team in anticipation of the WADA/UCI appeal.

http://newsticker.sueddeutsche.de/list/id/1119500

 

[flicker]

Contador is free and clear. No hair test allowed. Plasticizers are an issue, to those who like to speculate, however there is no sanction against the hair test.
Plasticizers still are not sanctioned. To big a shovel full of worms to make plasticzers an issue, as someone would want to go back and check a few riders, specifically the forum straw man.
If the WADA/IOC, the harbingers of fairness wanted to dig shovelfulls of night crawellers they could dig into the fecund soil of all the stored samples, but truly what would be the point.
We can all speculate, UCI/WADA/IOC can toot there toy trumpets, but the amount of clen is not performance enhancing and possibly could have been ingested in meat from Burma or Paraguay, or Andorra.
If you want to stop doping listen to Massimo Testa, he is the man to lead in the fight against doping.

 

[L'arriviste]

The joke continues http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-to-fight-any-appeal-with-even-more-determination - it seems that Bertie has now become quite the expert and that he'll prove everyone right

As far as I - and anyone else here it seems - can tell, he tossed out an unliekly theory idea to a couple of scared guys who were looking for any old excuse to let him off! Someone should tell him that McCrap may OK this given too based on the cash on offer, but thatWADA won't have any of that.

AC adds a French lawyer (Jean-Louis Dupont) to his team in anticipation of the WADA/UCI appeal.

http://newsticker.sueddeutsche.de/list/id/1119500

I must say that, even if he is legally at sea in my opinion, I am nonetheless quite impressed with the latest developments in Contador's media defence and I mean this quite genuinely.

I rather disliked the tearful threats to quit and the radio silence that followed, but this is pretty upbeat stuff. He definitely thinks he's going to get off this one with just the power of his messaging. And maybe he will.

 

[sniper]

I must say that, even if he is legally at sea in my opinion, I am nonetheless quite impressed with the latest developments in Contador's media defence and I mean this quite genuinely.

I rather disliked the tearful threats to quit and the radio silence that followed, but this is pretty upbeat stuff. He definitely thinks he's going to get off this one with just the power of his messaging. And maybe he will.

The fact that he added this French lawyer suggests that he knows he has to empty his pockets and bring in the very best of the best in order to avoid a sanction when it goes to CAS.
My bet is that AC knows that the only way for him to get off the hook is by technicality. If no technicalities are found, his chances to avoid sanction are virtually none. That explains why he's bringing in the extra top-notch lawyer, to bring him that technicality.

EDIT: the new lawyer is not a Frenchman but a Belgian, by the way, specialized in international sports law.

 

[Publicus]

The fact that he added this French lawyer suggests that he knows he has to empty his pockets and bring in the very best of the best in order to avoid a sanction when it goes to CAS.
My bet is that AC knows that the only way for him to get off the hook is by technicality. If no technicalities are found, his chances to avoid sanction are virtually none. That explains why he's bringing in the extra top-notch lawyer, to bring him that technicality.

EDIT: the new lawyer is not a Frenchman but a Belgian, by the way, specialized in international sports law.

I think you are stretching things a bit. He's hired an experienced appellate attorney who has a successful track record arguing at CAS. That's simply a smart hire, not evidence of his lack of confidence in his own innocence or case.

And as I've intimated in earlier posts, I think, legally speaking, this is going to be a much tougher case to overturn on appeal given the precedents that are out there. WADA has accepted the "proof by exclusion" theory (I just made that term up so forgive me), so it will be difficult to dismiss for lack of DIRECT proof that the meat he was tainted. Coupled with AC relying HEAVILY on his bio-passport and non-positive tests over the course of 2010 and especially during the Tour, and WADA/UCI currently defending the validity and accuracy of those tests, I say with all honesty that I wouldn't be surprised if UCI and WADA waived their appeal rights. The only saving grace would be the revelation of the rumor plasticizers results and even then I think CAS would not allow NEW evidence to be introduced at the appellate level without allowing AC's attorney's opportunity to respond. So, my guess (and it is just a guess), AC will line up to defend his title at the TdF.

Ok, flame away....

 

[poupou]

Maybe WADA would request the restesting of Contador's Giro urines.

I am not sure that Contador has strong argues with the lot of positive cases that could be provided by retrotesting.

 

[sniper]

I think you are stretching things a bit. He's hired an experienced appellate attorney who has a successful track record arguing at CAS. That's simply a smart hire, not evidence of his lack of confidence in his own innocence or case.

And as I've intimated in earlier posts, I think, legally speaking, this is going to be a much tougher case to overturn on appeal given the precedents that are out there. WADA has accepted the "proof by exclusion" theory (I just made that term up so forgive me), so it will be difficult to dismiss for lack of DIRECT proof that the meat he was tainted. Coupled with AC relying HEAVILY on his bio-passport and non-positive tests over the course of 2010 and especially during the Tour, and WADA/UCI currently defending the validity and accuracy of those tests, I say with all honesty that I wouldn't be surprised if UCI and WADA waived their appeal rights. The only saving grace would be the revelation of the rumor plasticizers results and even then I think CAS would not allow NEW evidence to be introduced at the appellate level without allowing AC's attorney's opportunity to respond. So, my guess (and it is just a guess), AC will line up to defend his title at the TdF.

Ok, flame away....

hm... good post. good points. you speak realistically.
The fact that AC's pulling in all these big shot lawyers does indeed indicate that AC believes he has a decent chance of winning this case.

 

[Benotti69]

Maybe WADA would request the restesting of Contador's Giro urines.

I am not sure that Contador has strong argues with the lot of positive cases that could be provided by retrotesting.

i would have thought that with the whole issue of minute amounts of clen they should test all of Contador's samples for clen. But they wont will they.

 

[Oldman]

I think you are stretching things a bit. He's hired an experienced appellate attorney who has a successful track record arguing at CAS. That's simply a smart hire, not evidence of his lack of confidence in his own innocence or case.

And as I've intimated in earlier posts, I think, legally speaking, this is going to be a much tougher case to overturn on appeal given the precedents that are out there. WADA has accepted the "proof by exclusion" theory (I just made that term up so forgive me), so it will be difficult to dismiss for lack of DIRECT proof that the meat he was tainted. Coupled with AC relying HEAVILY on his bio-passport and non-positive tests over the course of 2010 and especially during the Tour, and WADA/UCI currently defending the validity and accuracy of those tests, I say with all honesty that I wouldn't be surprised if UCI and WADA waived their appeal rights. The only saving grace would be the revelation of the rumor plasticizers results and even then I think CAS would not allow NEW evidence to be introduced at the appellate level without allowing AC's attorney's opportunity to respond. So, my guess (and it is just a guess), AC will line up to defend his title at the TdF.

Ok, flame away....

Agree as well on the likely outcome. Cynicism aside Contador's image has taken a serious hit. Hopefully some added scrutiny will "equalize" his performances ala' Lance and he'll start to fade into the background.

 

[python]

I think you are stretching things a bit. He's hired an experienced appellate attorney who has a successful track record arguing at CAS. That's simply a smart hire, not evidence of his lack of confidence in his own innocence or case.

And as I've intimated in earlier posts, I think, legally speaking, this is going to be a much tougher case to overturn on appeal given the precedents that are out there. WADA has accepted the "proof by exclusion" theory (I just made that term up so forgive me), so it will be difficult to dismiss for lack of DIRECT proof that the meat he was tainted. Coupled with AC relying HEAVILY on his bio-passport and non-positive tests over the course of 2010 and especially during the Tour, and WADA/UCI currently defending the validity and accuracy of those tests, I say with all honesty that I wouldn't be surprised if UCI and WADA waived their appeal rights. The only saving grace would be the revelation of the rumor plasticizers results and even then I think CAS would not allow NEW evidence to be introduced at the appellate level without allowing AC's attorney's opportunity to respond. So, my guess (and it is just a guess), AC will line up to defend his title at the TdF.

Ok, flame away....

you're concurrently a little right and a lot wrong in that portion i bolded. the rest of your post is on the money and is basically an echo (as noted earlier by sniper) of what i posted incessantly during your 'absence' the right part is about the plasticizers but not the old (rumoured) tour test results but about the NEW plasticizer tests wada and the uci can ask to be run on any samples any time. the wrong part is that the new evidence is more than welcome by cas as each case (by cas's own charter) is de nuevo. there is little contador's lawyers can do if wada or the uci ask for re-testing old samples for plasticizers or anything they wish. there are clear precedents and no amount of protest by contador's lawyers can derail the process if wada is sure they have the goods (read usada's response to landis's obfuscating tactic when they wanted to retest his b-samples for exogenous testo).

the key here is - do wada/uci have the plasticizer test winning card in their back pocket ? i don't know. the litmus test will be the uci's lack of appeal or their lackluster press release about a joint wada appeal.
--
btw, the 'new' layer is really an old news. another stark example of the utter ignorance of the english-speaking media. dupont published a strongly worded pro-contador article in a major paper 3 weeks ago. this guy, unlike landis's empty threats at his time, is a message to the uci and wada - 'if you want a fight, make sure you have deep pockets b/c i will take you any place i can'.

needles to mention, contador's pockets are deeper than landis's and could be lined by some political influences..hence the pm speeches

 

[Publicus]

you're concurrently a little right and a lot wrong in that portion i bolded. the rest of your post is on the money and is basically an echo (as noted earlier by sniper) of what i posted incessantly during your 'absence' the right part is about the plasticizers but not the old (rumoured) tour test results but about the NEW plasticizer tests wada and the uci can ask to be run on any samples any time. the wrong part is that the new evidence is more than welcome by cas as each case (by cas's own charter) is de nuevo. there is little contador's lawyers can do if wada or the uci ask for re-testing old samples for plasticizers or anything they wish. there are clear precedents and no amount of protest by contador's lawyers can derail the process if wada is sure they have the goods (read usada's response to landis's obfuscating tactic when they wanted to retest his b-samples for exogenous testo).

the key here is - do wada/uci have the plasticizer test winning card in their back pocket ? i don't know. the litmus test will be the uci's lack of appeal or their lackluster press release about a joint wada appeal.
--
btw, the 'new' layer is really an old news. another stark example of the utter ignorance of the english-speaking media. dupont published a strongly worded pro-contador article in a major paper 3 weeks ago. this guy, unlike landis's empty threats at his time, is a message to the uci and wada - 'if you want a fight, make sure you have deep pockets b/c i will take you any place i can'.

needles to mention, contador's pockets are deeper than landis's and could be lined by some political influences..hence the pm speeches

This was a question I had asked some time ago, because it would color how this particular issue would be handled. Thanks for educating me on the point.

 

[python]

This was a question I had asked some time ago, because it would color how this particular issue would be handled. Thanks for educating me on the point.

developing some of the points you made…(i may struggle with some legal terms but the rest is based on solid facts and logic)

(i)‘the proof by exclusion’ theory..
I read through dozens of publicly available rulings and verdicts. by any means, it’s not a new theory. perhaps a surprise to many, but the often-cited german ponger’s case where the theory was applied too, was actually not the most flawless application of the principle. strictly speaking, wada could have challenge the acquitted german on blood transfusion. but the dttb wisely, never even put it on the (tennis) table. so, there was no transfusion to exclude.

conversely, the thing that may make caso contador different (and consequently harder to overturn) wrt the exclusion theory is that the uci and wada, rather sloppily, locked contador’s options to 4 choices. in my legally challenged view, they thus cut down their own space and gave contador much room for both knocking out the easy choices and for posturing over multiple issues ‘limiting/obstructing’ his rights for self defence (forgot proper legal terms). granted, it’s all smoky, but that’s how the legal coin rolls and judging from the contador’s rebuttal document (that followed the 1yr ‘proposal’), this has been his huge theme that helped to ‘change’ rfec mind..

(ii) 'each cas case is de nuevo'
it’s true but cas as most courts does not like wasting time. so, in reality most appeals are judged on the original set of facts. if nothing new emerges, i agree with you, an appeal isn’t agiven but what makes contador’s case so fascinating is this ever hanging issue of the alleged plasticizer test. was the german article more than a speculation ? as I mentioned many times, to my reading of the case, even if true, it’s irrelevant in legal sense. Because contador was never charged and there is no apparent nor implied mention of the test in any official papers. but wada can re-test older samples as part of de nuevo statute. will they ? i honestly don’t see anything that can stop them short of their own indecision. a typical obstructing tactic by a lawyer would be to delay a retest, demand another laboratory, attack methodology etc. all to no avail, imo, if the test is ready and there is some blood bag particles in the urine.
but there should be no obstruction ? contador explicitly allowed his samples.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

(ii) 'each cas case is de nuevo'
it’s true but cas as most courts does not like wasting time. so, in reality most appeals are judged on the original set of facts. if nothing new emerges, i agree with you, an appeal isn’t agiven but what makes contador’s case so fascinating is this ever hanging issue of the alleged plasticizer test. was the german article more than a speculation ? as I mentioned many times, to my reading of the case, even if true, it’s irrelevant in legal sense. Because contador was never charged and there is no apparent nor implied mention of the test in any official papers. but wada can re-test older samples as part of de nuevo statute. will they ? i honestly don’t see anything that can stop them short of their own indecision. a typical obstructing tactic by a lawyer would be to delay a retest, demand another laboratory, attack methodology etc. all to no avail, imo, if the test is ready and there is some blood bag particles in the urine.
but there should be no obstruction ? contador explicitly allowed his samples.

My (very limited) understanding of the process is that the CAS is an abitration/appellate court, and therefore it is limited to examining evidence and procedures that have been submitted in a lower court.
In the case of Landis, the charge relating to testosterone would be supported by further evidence of exogenous testosterone, whereas any charge relating to the clenbuterol in Contador's sample has nothing to do with the presence of DEHP or other plasitcisers - surely this would need to be a new case, firstly lodged by the lower court, i.e. a UCI AAS report to the RFEC, which would then be separately appealed to the CAS?

I have not studied the CAS charter, or the legal framework it functions within, but if it is as Python describes, it would appear to be against most (or any) functional models of Appellate courts, where the rules on submission of new evidence is severely limited, and must be clearly and directly linked to the charge(s) under appeal.

 

[python]

greasymonkey, the issue of cas's charter was brought up in several discussions i followed. as far as i recall, it was always stressed, each case brought in front of cas can be heard de nuevo -whatever that implies. it was explained, to me, a non-lawyer, it's if the case is brand new brought to a brand new panel. i assume, rules of evidence could be just as well de nuevo. it would be a logical conclusion. if you compare it to an appellant court, it may not apply directly as this is an arbitration court.

 

[python]

i went to cas’s site and downloaded this main operative document:
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/3921/5048/0/Code 2010 _en_ final version.pdf

Statutes of the Bodies Working for the Settlement of Sports-Related Disputes

by all means, please correct me or point where i’m wrong if I’m misreading it. no hard feelings nowhere i found that the rules of evidence are limited to the previously heard facts. in fact, the parties are encouraged to submit their arguments as if there was no past. the only limits i found refer to timing of submittals.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

hm... good post. good points. you speak realistically.
The fact that AC's pulling in all these big shot lawyers does indeed indicate that AC believes he has a decent chance of winning this case.

Absolutely! No one with financial resources has ever hired a high-zoot lawyer to defend their 'innocence' (real or imagined).

If he was guilty should he be hitting up the notary on the corner to represent him? Since he knows he's guilty, wouldn't that make sense? Why spend money on a decent lawyer?

Based on that logic, anyone who hired an above average lawyer MUST be innocent.

 

[Publicus]

i went to cas’s site and downloaded this main operative document:
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/3921/5048/0/Code 2010 _en_ final version.pdf

Statutes of the Bodies Working for the Settlement of Sports-Related Disputes

by all means, please correct me or point where i’m wrong if I’m misreading it. no hard feelings nowhere i found that the rules of evidence are limited to the previously heard facts. in fact, the parties are encouraged to submit their arguments as if there was no past. the only limits i found refer to timing of submittals.

It's spelled out in black in white in Procedural Rule 57 (R57):

Scope of Panel’s Review, Hearing

The Panel shall have full power to review the facts and the law. It may issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and refer the case back to the previous instance.

Which raises a question, if the UCI/WADA has the plasticizer information available and, even though not validated, attempt to introduce it at CAS, I wouldn't be surprised if an equitable defense is raised; namely that they acted in bad faith by not providing AC with such information. In that instance, I could see CAS annuling RFEC's decision and returning the matter back to RFEC to reconsider the matter in light of the new information. That would prolong this even further....

 

[Oldman]

It's spelled out in black in white in Procedural Rule 57 (R57):



Which raises a question, if the UCI/WADA has the plasticizer information available and, even though not validated, attempt to introduce it at CAS, I wouldn't be surprised if an equitable defense is raised; namely that they acted in bad faith by not providing AC with such information. In that instance, I could see CAS annuling RFEC's decision and returning the matter back to RFEC to reconsider the matter in light of the new information. That would prolong this even further....

Meanwhile he's still riding.

 

[sniper]

Meanwhile he's still riding.

how true, and how sad. another obvious cheater on two wheels.

 

[sartoris]

how true, and how sad. another obvious cheater on two wheels.

Oh yeah, but ......

Otherwise, you're wasting your precious time and should be getting a life ASAP. Peace.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Oh yeah, but ......

Otherwise, you're wasting your precious time and should be getting a life ASAP. Peace.

Yeah sure thats like saying ....HE IS A PED ABUSER BUT PROVE IT! No worries his day will come. ToyPistol goes bang bang.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I can't wait until Contador gets busted and cycling proves it's winning the war against doping by giving the title to the next guy in line who didn't get caught.

Kim Andersen, bring your boy down.

 

[blackcat]

greasymonkey, the issue of cas's charter was brought up in several discussions i followed. as far as i recall, it was always stressed, each case brought in front of cas can be heard de nuevo -whatever that implies. it was explained, to me, a non-lawyer, it's if the case is brand new brought to a brand new panel. i assume, rules of evidence could be just as well de nuevo. it would be a logical conclusion. if you compare it to an appellant court, it may not apply directly as this is an arbitration court.

appellate court, appellate. Dude, since u are not a lawyer, u get a pass.

 

[D-Queued]

I can't wait until Contador gets busted and cycling proves it's winning the war against doping by giving the title to the next guy in line who didn't get caught.

Kim Andersen, bring your boy down.

It is so good to know he is the last one, even if it suggests doping might become extinct.

Dave.