Contador acquitted

[moi123]

It's finally official now, and I'm very happy with the outcome. As I said earlier, I don't think he is cleared from all this, appeals are more than likely, but at least some justice has been done.

 

[Ryaguas]

screw this...

i'm done with this sport*

* it's not really a sport anymore is it??

Bon Chance monsieur! fermez la porte s'il vous plait =D

Ok guys move along... there is nothing to see here... move along! move along!

 

[Publicus]

look at the monkey!

The Chewbacca Defense! I rest my case.

 

[Ryaguas]

look at the monkey!

LOOOOOL EPIC!!!!! hahahahahahahahahaha

I had been looking for that pic time ago... hahahha

 

[Roland Rat]

It's finally official now, and I'm very happy with the outcome. As I said earlier, I don't think he is cleared from all this, appeals are more than likely, but at least some justice has been done.

By all means be happy with the verdict, but don't dare claim that justice has been done. This is nothing of the sort.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think dimtick has the best explanation I've heard so far why they came up with 1 year. There's absolutely no basis for 1 year. It's either two years or acquittal. I think dimtick is right. This was a decision made to be appealed (by either side). And guess what, they got what they wanted.

I agree with all of what he said except this line

They're counting on the UCI to appeal so that the CAS will make the final decision and be the ones that take the blame of the Spanish public.

I think they would be just as happy if nobody appeals and their verdict stands.

 

[Cobblestones]

Maybe they are not even able to consider the posibility of what that test might show, since at this point, being non approved it's results don't really exist?

Forget the plasticizer. That's not the point here at all.

Actually roundabout answered the question already.

The sad truth is that there isn't really anything which rules out the transfusion theory except maybe a donation.

 

[hrotha]

Right.

Anyway, is there anything that discusses (preferably with data) why the transfusion theory was ruled out?

Unfortunately, no, as far as I know. The RFEC's ruling proposal and Contador's defense statement refer to and quote the documents that discuss it and which are supposed to be in the appendixes of the ruling proposal, but that's it. They only quote the conclusion - ie. they just say all alternative explanations have been ruled out.

It's very frustrating.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

on a side note, weren't there tons of technicalities and procedural failures (on the side of the UCI and other parties) that could/should have, but didn't, acquit Landis?

Yes in my opinion there was,,,,,but please do not bring that up here. You Haters just do not love the Toypistol and his greatness!

 

[mmedeast]

Maybe the RFEC didn't realize he doesn't really have a pistol? Probably just worried that El Pistolero might show up and start shooting his finger gun at them. What a bad joke this entire thing has turned out to be (although I can't say I'm overly suprised).

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Sounds like the UCI back-doored Contador with a way to wiggle free. Count on the UCI to not follow their own rules.

Don't worry Berto, it is still a long road to hoe, and the principals of the sport don't always see eye to eye.

Riis will be at the Tour but not with Berto, say "Denmark".

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thank you so much Susan and Barrus for this friendly gesture.

("¿It was only asked out of uttermost respect for Contador his record of innocence¡!")

Oh please!
I would like to request that the ? go back up, at least until all the appeals are in.

 

[mulletCobra]

Deep Pockets?

 

[Publicus]

Forget the plasticizer. That's not the point here at all.

Actually roundabout answered the question already.

The sad truth is that there isn't really anything which rules out the transfusion theory except maybe a donation.

I guess it depends. Does anyone know what evidentiary (sp) standard they using in doping cases? Is it reasonable doubt (criminal) or a mere preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)? If it is the former, then I think you are right. If it merely has to more likely than not, then I think he can construct a pretty good argument that the bio-passport exonerates him of the blood transfusion (especially given the UCI has felt confident enough to bring two cases based solely on irregularities in a rider's profile).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's finally official now, and I'm very happy with the outcome. As I said earlier, I don't think he is cleared from all this, appeals are more than likely, but at least some justice has been done.

It is a Great Glorius Day indeed. ??????????????

 

[Señor_Contador]

No one's talking about the plasticizers test. That test has nothing to do with establishing why a transfusion could not have been the way the clen traces appeared in Contador's system.

But that's not for Contador to prove.

Why on earth would you bring that up?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Can the Moderators Please put the ? back up until after the appeals process had been played out?

 

[Cobblestones]

I guess it depends. Does anyone know what evidentiary (sp) standard they using in doping cases? Is it reasonable doubt (criminal) or a mere preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)? If it is the former, then I think you are right. If it merely has to more likely than not, then I think he can construct a pretty good argument that the bio-passport exonerates him of the blood transfusion (especially given the UCI has felt confident enough to bring two cases based solely on irregularities in a rider's profile).

As I said before. With good passport data and frequent testing (which there isn't) you could probably rule out a 1 pint transfusion for certain days. Can you rule out a 1/2 pint transfusion? A 1/3 pint transfusion? Probably not. And that's precisely what riders have moved on to in the recent past. Guess why? To confound the bio passport.

 

[BotanyBay]

Sounds like the UCI back-doored Contador with a way to wiggle free. Count on the UCI to not follow their own rules.

Don't worry Berto, it is still a long road to hoe, and the principals of the sport don't always see eye to eye.

Riis will be at the Tour but not with Berto, say "Denmark".

In their "appeal", I wonder if the UCI will use the same Dutch atty that they used for the Armstrong "Investigation"?

 

[Publicus]

But that's not for Contador to prove.

Why on earth would you bring that up?

Actually AC had to prove that the clen came from food contamination. Since he didn't have the meat to be tested, he would have to ELIMINATE all other methods by which the clen could have gotten into his system (conclusively) and then hope that the applicable judicial reviewers accept that food contamination. In short, he had to prove the proverbial negative.

 

[hrotha]

But that's not for Contador to prove.

Why on earth would you bring that up?

Why don't you try reading this thread to find out?

 

[Señor_Contador]

You guys are beating around the bush here.

Bottom line is that Alberto tested positive for clenbuterol. All the UCI/WADA want to know is how it entered his system. Not how it couldn't have entered.

 

[Cobblestones]

Why don't you try reading this thread to find out?

Do they have a 'Public strategies' branch in Spain? I suggest not to feed this troll.

 

[BotanyBay]

Welcome to being "played". Enjoy how it feels, because this is how it feels.

 

[Publicus]

As I said before. With good passport data and frequent testing (which there isn't) you could probably rule out a 1 pint transfusion for certain days. Can you rule out a 1/2 pint transfusion? A 1/3 pint transfusion? Probably not. And that's precisely what riders have moved on to in the recent past. Guess why? To confound the bio passport.

Completely understand and agree. I'm just saying it is an ingenuous argument in that the UCI and, frankly WADA, will be in the very difficult position of arguing AGAINST the validity of the efficacy of the bio-passport on appeal--even though they are simultaneously seeking to prove its efficacy in the Pelzotti(sp) case.