Contador acquitted

[sniper]

“It’s a story that we’ve been expecting,” Offredo said to RMC.fr. “We’re not unduly surprised. A little [surprised] about the Clenbuterol because we’d really have expected something else. It’s like the tree that hides the forest."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chav...-innocenceides the forest.

and then to realize that a whole country of cyclingfans is still buying that steak-story.

 

[Cimber]

yet another rider aquitted for clen. Philip Nielsen has been aquitted by the DIF (the Danish sports agency). Seems as if all clen cases end this way these days. Will be interesting what UCI/WADA will do. There are a lot of cases to apeal now.

http://www.feltet.dk/nyheder/philip_nielsen_frifundet_for_clenbuterol/
(use google translate it as it is in Danish)

 

[python]

let's draw some quick parallels and differences with conti's case

parallels:
- acquitted by the national federation
- ate meat
- small amount found

major difference:
-mexican meat
-colo who was suspended too ate the meat in the same hotel

many asked earlier, why more cyclists don't test positive for clen ?

are the 4-5 cases in the recent months frequent enough ?

 

[Benotti69]

let's draw some quick parallels and differences with conti's case

parallels:
- acquitted by the national federation
- ate meat*
- small amount found

major difference:
-mexican meat
-colo who was suspended too ate the meat in the same hotel**

many asked earlier, why more cyclists don't test positive for clen ?

are the 4-5 cases in the recent months frequent enough ?

*Allegedly ate basque meat? iirc.

** In Mexico.

 

[icefire]

Two days to go and UCI is still undecided:

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2011/03/22/ciclismo/1300815535.html

 

[Sanjūrō]

Two days to go and UCI is still undecided:

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2011/03/22/ciclismo/1300815535.html

They appeal, otherwise Clenbuterol becomes in effect a drug sanctioned for use in sport.

 

[Andynonomous]

Burden of proof ?

They appeal, otherwise Clenbuterol becomes in effect a drug sanctioned for use in sport.

If they don't appeal, a new precedent is set. The sporting authorities have to prove that the PED that an athlete tests positive for, was administered intentionally. The burden of proof is now with the authorities. All the athlete has to do is suggest a plausible innocent explanation.

Of course, it is almost impossible to prove why the PED got into the athlete's system, therefore it will be open season (even more than now) on doping in sport (not just cycling). You might just as well eliminate the charade that the sporting authorities are trying to stop doping.

 

[hrotha]

The interesting bit for me would be that, if UCI ends up appealing, they'd have waited as long as possible to do so, stalling the process again for no apparent reason. I still haven't seen any theory explaining why UCI is wasting time like this. What do they stand to gain from waiting?

Oh well. Maybe they won't appeal, who knows.

edit: unless they want Contador at the Tour no matter what and are trying their best so that the hypothetical CAS ruling wouldn't come until after the Tour.

 

[Escarabajo]

let's draw some quick parallels and differences with conti's case

parallels:
- acquitted by the national federation
- ate meat
- small amount found

major difference:
-mexican meat
-colo who was suspended too ate the meat in the same hotel

many asked earlier, why more cyclists don't test positive for clen ?

are the 4-5 cases in the recent months frequent enough ?

Actually the only story that I don't believe is the one told by Contador.

 

[webvan]

That pretty much goes for everyone I think, the problem is finding an "angle" to make it stand out from the others.

 

[peloton]

as usual, a good read by these guys

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/time-for-clenbuterol-to-retire-from.html

 

[D-Queued]

They appeal, otherwise Clenbuterol becomes in effect a drug sanctioned for use in sport.

...and Clen is a drug well known, over a long period, for its ergogenic effects.

Three choices:

1. No appeal. UCI throws in the towel and leaves it up to WADA. WADA similarly does not appeal due to challenges in Chinese and Mexican beef.
2. Appeal and try and stick this case before everyone in the peloton has Clenbuteral with their croissants before Tour stages.
3. No appeal, but put this on the hot list for studies to conclusively nail the next person that tests positive.

As far as last year's Tour result goes, can we start a petition for *asterisks?

Dave.

 

[Escarabajo]

...and Clen is a drug well known, over a long period, for its ergogenic effects.

Three choices:

1. No appeal. UCI throws in the towel and leaves it up to WADA. WADA similarly does not appeal due to challenges in Chinese and Mexican beef.
2. Appeal and try and stick this case before everyone in the peloton has Clenbuteral with their croissants before Tour stages.
3. No appeal, but put this on the hot list for studies to conclusively nail the next person that tests positive.

As far as last year's Tour result goes, can we start a petition for *asterisks?

Dave.

Ok.

1- Alberto Contador **
2- Andy Schleck
3- Denis Menchov

** Ate too much beef during the Pyrenean stages

 

[D-Queued]

Ok.

1- Alberto Contador **
2- Andy Schleck
3- Denis Menchov

** Ate too much beef during the Pyrenean stages

I think that was tongue-in-cheek, but this would be hilarious and gets my endorsement.

Asterisks for athletes that test positive, but do not get sanctioned, along with their limp excuses.

1 - XYZ **

** Had a sore bum

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

let's draw some quick parallels and differences with conti's case

parallels:
- acquitted by the national federation
- ate meat
- small amount found

major difference:
-mexican meat
-colo who was suspended too ate the meat in the same hotel

many asked earlier, why more cyclists don't test positive for clen ?

are the 4-5 cases in the recent months frequent enough ?

Bert's case is also different, AFAIK, in that he tested negative immediately before and after the positive. Because he was the race leader, a situation that most other riders don't find themselves in, and of course couldn't in the case of a one day race. Without that additional evidence, Bert probably would have been suspended long ago. Certainly his case would be a lot tougher.

Rather than in effect allow CB use, as some here are suggesting will be the outcome if the meat excuse becomes widely accepted, how about if riders are compelled to save any meat they eat during a competition, so that it can be subsequently tested? This rule is probably too cumbersome for year-round use, but is it too much to ask for a major race?

Though I can already see riders planning to spike the meat. Basically, I suppose, an official would have to come around and take a sample of the meat while the riders were at dinner...

 

[veganrob]

Better they all become vegan.

 

[veganrob]

...and Clen is a drug well known, over a long period, for its ergogenic effects.

Three choices:

1. No appeal. UCI throws in the towel and leaves it up to WADA. WADA similarly does not appeal due to challenges in Chinese and Mexican beef.
2. Appeal and try and stick this case before everyone in the peloton has Clenbuteral with their croissants before Tour stages.
3. No appeal, but put this on the hot list for studies to conclusively nail the next person that tests positive.

As far as last year's Tour result goes, can we start a petition for *asterisks?

Dave.

I'm thinking #3 Dave

 

[Escarabajo]

Bert's case is also different, AFAIK, in that he tested negative immediately before and after the positive. Because he was the race leader, a situation that most other riders don't find themselves in, and of course couldn't in the case of a one day race. Without that additional evidence, Bert probably would have been suspended long ago. Certainly his case would be a lot tougher.

Rather than in effect allow CB use, as some here are suggesting will be the outcome if the meat excuse becomes widely accepted, how about if riders are compelled to save any meat they eat during a competition, so that it can be subsequently tested? This rule is probably too cumbersome for year-round use, but is it too much to ask for a major race?

Though I can already see riders planning to spike the meat. Basically, I suppose, an official would have to come around and take a sample of the meat while the riders were at dinner...

MI, I think you are going a little overboard. Just set a minimum threshold, so nobody tests positive.

 

[Merckx index]

MI, I think you are going a little overboard. Just set a minimum threshold, so nobody tests positive.

Yes, it's an over the top response to an over the top situation. The brute fact is that there is no way to set a minimum threshold that can separate doping from contaminated meat with any reliability. The threshold should certainly be lower than 300 pg/ml, but if it is, then that guy Nielsen doesn't get off. A 50 pg/ml value seems very reasonable, but even if one thinks Bert was innocent, his case shows very clearly that a value that low can result from doping. That is true even if one tests negative before and after the positive, as Bert did, and much more likely if one doesn't have before and after tests, as is usually going to be the case.

A salient fact, to me, is that CB is commonly used for weight loss, IOW, future rather than current performance enhancement. This means that many riders will be using it out of competition rather than during even a prolonged race like a GT. We all agree that if Bert is guilty, he used it in this manner, and I think this is probably the case for many other riders. But that being the case, they are always going to test at very low levels during competition. A minimum threshold means that they can usually get away with taking it in this manner.

We do know for sure that if one does not eat contaminated meat, or some contaminated supplement, one is not going to test at levels above, say, 5-10 pg/ml. So if the rule is directed at this problem, it should be possible to nail riders in a way that minimizes false positives.

 

[Bicicleta]

Contador''s lawyer has an article about Bertie in the Huffington Post today
WTF??? Is he now doing PR for him too?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ramos/trust-the-facts-and-the-s_b_839547.html

 

[GJB123]

PR indeed and not very well written also. He should stick to his daytime job of lawyering. But on a "serious" note, I would have refrained from the line "most tested athlete in the world".

As he doesn't address any of the evidence on how they discounted the blood transfusion theory, this article is worth zilch.

Regards
GJ

 

[roundabout]

Contador''s lawyer has an article about Bertie in the Huffington Post today
WTF??? Is he now doing PR for him too?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ramos/trust-the-facts-and-the-s_b_839547.html

My Lionel Hutz comparison is pretty apt. AFAIK Contador got himself a real lawyer in case of the appeal.

 

[flicker]

Contador''s lawyer has an article about Bertie in the Huffington Post today
WTF??? Is he now doing PR for him too?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ramos/trust-the-facts-and-the-s_b_839547.html

I see many logical fallacies in Ramos' article in the Huffington post. Also he never addresses the plasticiser issue.

 

[Publicus]

Contador''s lawyer has an article about Bertie in the Huffington Post today
WTF??? Is he now doing PR for him too?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ramos/trust-the-facts-and-the-s_b_839547.html

From our perspective, this seems like overkill and frankly unecessary, but for the lay person, this is probably pretty effective in adding some color around the story that he tested positive. It is the beginning of the rehabilitation process. And given the critical juncture in which it is being delivered (UCI decision on appeal pending and WADA's as well), they wisely went with a lawyer (we are wont to overstate our case) versus a true PR professional.

I doubt it will effect UCI/WADA (and if it does, it will be negative), but that wasn't the audience.

 

[sniper]

Contador''s lawyer has an article about Bertie in the Huffington Post today
WTF??? Is he now doing PR for him too?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ramos/trust-the-facts-and-the-s_b_839547.html

Everybody, except this lawyer, knows the case is about tainted meat vs. blood transfusion.

Man...

The last fact I would like you to consider is that because Alberto was leading the race, he knew he was going to be tested on the day which he tested positive. Why would Alberto Contador knowingly ingest a banned substance the day or night before he would be tested wearing the Yellow Jersey? Does it make sense that the top cyclist in the world, and likely the most tested man in the world, who watches every calorie and is so careful about what he puts in his body, would knowingly ingest a banned substance that offered no performance benefit but could get him banned from cycling?

This is too sad. Really.

PR indeed and not very well written also. He should stick to his daytime job of lawyering. But on a "serious" note, I would have refrained from the line "most tested athlete in the world".

As he doesn't address any of the evidence on how they discounted the blood transfusion theory, this article is worth zilch.

Regards
GJ

a +1, for a change