Contador acquitted

[JPM London]

Christ, these were the actual words out of Tom 'not accountable for the three different occasions cocaine has been found in my body' Boonen's mouth? This must surely be tongue-in-cheek.

“They may have to change the whole system and accept that an athlete can have a certain product in his body without him being held accountable for it."

I know cocaine's not a PED, but still.

My first thought was the same - "what on earth is coke-head shipping in for?"

But then I actually read what he said, which was basically just to point at the problem of different riders, apparently, being treated differently. And that if they end up deciding that he's not due a ban, then they should ASAP instate a lower threshold to avoid cases that has to be abandoned.

Actually makes sense - and in line with what quite a few says here and there...

 

[DAOTEC]

España exculpa a Contador

Martes, 15/2/2011, 15:33 h: http://www.elpais.com/deportes/

(http://elpais.com/articulo/deportes/Espana/exculpa/Contador/Tes)

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

.

 

[Publicus]

can any of you legal fellows chip in ? publicus, barrus... ?

i'm struggling with the logic of the procedural slip..

just to remind, 8 november was the date when the uci officially passed the case to rfec. the package included 600+ pages including the wada letter with many attachments.

how does not informing contador's team on time affect the factual and evidential aspects of the anti-doping rule violation ?

violation of rights i understand and dont like but how it prevented contador from showing he did not dope ? OK if they learned about it a month later i can see it but a day or two seem totally inconsequential...

Without seeing the actual statute this sounds akin to a violation of his due process rights--in this case procedural due process. If that's what this hinges on, this case is likely dead--WADA/UCI may have no grounds to appeal (not sure of EU law, so I'm leaving a lot wiggle room here). Of course, this is just pure speculation on my part, so please don't quote/rely on this.

As a Contador fan, let me say this is what I would call a pyrrhic victory. I would have much rather he faced a 1 year ban than get off on a procedural defect. Again, I'll reserve further comment until there is a fuller account of the basis for exonerating him (I use that term lightly).

 

[GJB123]

can any of you legal fellows chip in ? publicus, barrus... ?

i'm struggling with the logic of the procedural slip..

just to remind, 8 november was the date when the uci officially passed the case to rfec. the package included 600+ pages including the wada letter with many attachments.

how does not informing contador's team on time affect the factual and evidential aspects of the anti-doping rule violation ?

violation of rights i understand and dont like but how it prevented contador from showing he did not dope ? OK if they learned about it a month later i can see it but a day or two seem totally inconsequential...

My French is a bit rusty, but if I understand the article in l'Equipe correctly, it is not that certain documents were provided to AC's defense team a little too late, but rather not at all or only in the last few days. If that is the case that could naturally have seriously harmed his defense depending on the nature of the documents that were not or belatedly disclosed. Hence my speculation a bit earlier that perhaps his defense lept on a missing part of documentation that could have exculpated AC.

Purely legally, at least in the Netherlands, incorrect dosclosure could lead to
the case being in admissible, because the defendant has been hurt in his legal rights to such an extent that it is no longer considered to a fair trial or due process. Not saying that happened here mind you, because until we learn more on the actual verdict it is mere speculation.

Would be kinda funny though that it would be a legal technicality from poenal law that gets AC off. I have been laughed out of the clinic when I stated over and over again that anti-doping rules and internal legal sporting procedures are in blatant contradiction with the most basic of human rights and poenal laws. All because, justifiably so according to many here, this is just an internal (civil) case for the sports' governing bodies based on the fact that all riders sign off on that before receiving their license. This would clearly show that UCI, WADA, etc. are not above the normal rule of law, as they shouldn't be.

Let's also hope that, if nothing else, some good is to come out of this in scrapping or mitigating the strict liability nature of anti-doping rules and/or that all substances for which an environmental contamination or accidental ingestion is possible get a proper threshold.

Regards
GJ

 

[Dewulf]

Christ, these were the actual words out of Tom 'not accountable for the three different occasions cocaine has been found in my body' Boonen's mouth? This must surely be tongue-in-cheek.

“They may have to change the whole system and accept that an athlete can have a certain product in his body without him being held accountable for it."

I know cocaine's not a PED, but still.

He's just saying that there's no existing regulations for letting Contador off on the grounds being argued for.

Not that it wouldn't have been a great joke if he was talking about letting riders have a little extra-curricular powder based fun, but i don't think he's on about that at all, lol.

 

[ttrider]

When is the official press release?

 

[Roland Rat]

My French is a bit rusty, but if I understand the article in l'Equipe correctly, it is not that certain documents were provided to AC's defense team a little too late, but rather not at all or only in the last few days. If that is the case that could naturally have seriously harmed his defense depending on the nature of the documents that were not or belatedly disclosed. Hence my speculation a bit earlier that perhaps his defense lept on a missing part of documentation that could have exculpated AC.

Purely legally, at least in the Netherlands, incorrect dosclosure could lead to
the case being in admissible, because the defendant has been hurt in his legal rights to such an extent that it is no longer considered to a fair trial or due process. Not saying that happened here mind you, because until we learn more on the actual verdict it is mere speculation.



Regards
GJ

It'll be the same in Spain - it's an EU directive.

What a ridiculous farce of a decision. I'm with the poster above on the UCI's involvement. They don't want Bertie banned. They create a procedural error that gets him off on a technicality. Everyone wins. The only spanner in the works here is that some pesky kid leaked details of the positive to the media. If this was dealt with behind closed doors (as many people advocate it should be), no-one would ever know. You see, JV, THIS is why everything needs to be done in the open.

 

[Parrulo]

When is the official press release?

that

i am tired of checking CN, jornalciclismo and marca every 5 minutes

 

[euanli]

UCI rule 357 states its the RFEC that needs to notify Contador. Not them.

 

[Roland Rat]

that

i am tired of checking CN, jornalciclismo and marca every 5 minutes

Here it is:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa! Ha Ha! Ha! HAAAAAAAAAAAAA ha ha ha ha haaaaaa!!!!! How do we still get away with this s**t?! Oh dear, I'm cryin' here. Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa....

 

[Publicus]

UCI rule 357 states its the RFEC that needs to notify Contador. Not them.

It wouldn't matter who didn't provide notice, it would matter that notice was not provided. Again, this is all speculation, but this sounds like procedural due process since the claim is that AC wasn't provided adequate disclosure as required by Spain's anti-doping laws. It wouldn't turn on who the bad actor was, simply that the procedural notice was not provided.

I'll be glad to get the actual announcement so we can all stop speculating on the basis for his exoneration (again, I use that term lightly).

 

[euanli]

It doesn't matter in terms why he got off. But it does in terms of who got him off.

 

[Ryaguas]

Hahahahahahaha... WTF Roland?? that was so funny!!! hahaha

Well... maybe Contador is "cleared" but the damage is done and his image will always be tainted for this case... anyway...

 

[Siriuscat]

I'm torn, as a Berto fan great there a get out clause, maybe the cheque has cleard the UCI after all, new version of SYSMEX but I'd have been happier if he'd taken a ban and be done with it. This just leaves a bad taste in the mouth no matter what I think of him as a rider.

It's time the whole process was overhauled, put out to an independant organisation keep pat and his merry band out of it. WADA needs to sort out some of the prohibited list to be more representative of the science we have and the progress in testing. It needs to be fair and as long as the UCI and the federations have anthing to do with it, it'll be as biased as they need to make it!

 

[roundabout]

twitter sez it's official now

http://twitter.com/inrng

 

[Barrus]

can any of you legal fellows chip in ? publicus, barrus... ?

i'm struggling with the logic of the procedural slip..

just to remind, 8 november was the date when the uci officially passed the case to rfec. the package included 600+ pages including the wada letter with many attachments.

how does not informing contador's team on time affect the factual and evidential aspects of the anti-doping rule violation ?

violation of rights i understand and dont like but how it prevented contador from showing he did not dope ? OK if they learned about it a month later i can see it but a day or two seem totally inconsequential...

The problem is that I do not know what the legal proceedings are at the RFEC and my Spanish is nowhere near that I could comprehend whatever legal writings had been made there. There is the possibility that not all the evidence needs to be presented to the defendant, unlikely but it is the case. If however it needed to be presented to Contie, they are in very big problems, with a possible necessity for a retrial or even a complete impossibility of further prosecution. If someone else could provide me with a brief overview with the RFEC proceedings I could then perhaps see whether there is any ECHR jurisprudence that deals with a similar matter (because this would probably be a art.6 violation) I'll also need to know to what extend Contador was disadvantaged before really saying anything, as you say if it were only a few days it could well prove inconsequential


However as far as information at the moment shows, this does not seem to be the lynchpin of the decision, if it was a technicality Contador would not be proven innocent as is probably the case in the current decision

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

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

Susan

 

[hfer07]

haters are gonna hate!!!

 

[Sørensen]

So very sweet

going for a **** now...

 

[Barrus]

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

Susan

Out of this piece:

Although Contador and his legal team were unable to produce a sample of the meat that they have claimed was tainted with the clenbuterol that resulted in the positive test, the fact that it could not be shown conclusively that Contador had deliberately taken the product worked in his favour.

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

 

[GJB123]

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

I beg to differ.

Regards
GJ

 

[RGScales]

WELL ITS OFFICIAL...he will not be sanctioned by Spain...it is also official that I am disgusted. what a load of s***!!!!!
WADA or UCI had better step up.

 

[RGScales]

I beg to differ.

Regards
GJ

Why do you beg to differ? He got away with cheating. plain and simple.

 

[Barrus]

I beg to differ.

Regards
GJ

What?
This:

he fact that it could not be shown conclusively that Contador had deliberately taken the product worked in his favour.

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)

 

[Publicus]

Out of this piece:



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

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.