Contador acquitted

[hrotha]

I'm not talking about the RFEC ruling. I'm talking about WADA code and UCI rules accordingly. If this ruling by RFEC is not appealed or it is upheld by CAS, then every doper in the future is going to claim contamination from something, and demand that it's proven otherwise.

RFEC operates on it's own planet. If they had their way cycling should join the WWE.

Yes, but my point is that if blood transfusion can be shown to be likely then the RFEC's ruling is shown to be worth zilch.

 

[meandmygitane]

I'm not talking about the RFEC ruling. I'm talking about WADA code and UCI rules accordingly. If this ruling by RFEC is not appealed or it is upheld by CAS, then every doper in the future is going to claim contamination from something, and demand that it's proven otherwise.

RFEC operates on it's own planet. If they had their way cycling should join the WWE.

Why did RFEC drag on the case for so long? Is it a deliberate strategy so that appeals by UCI/WADA was meant to be handled after Tour de France 2011? Was it all just a show?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Disagree. The RFEC's ruling was all about how the three alternative hypotheses (blood transfusion, clen microdosing, contaminated supplements) had to be ruled out, making food contamination the only explanation, despite the fact that the very same ruling pointed out Contador didn't and couldn't prove his theory was true.

I think that's what I'm trying to say? If transfusion can't really be ruled out, it doesn't have to be ironclad just plausible, then we go back to looking at the case on it's merits. Was there clen in his system? Science says....yes. Guilty, case closed.

 

[hrotha]

Why did RFEC drag on the case for so long? Is it a deliberate strategy so that appeals by UCI/WADA was meant to be handled after Tour de France 2011? Was it all just a show?

According to the RFEC, the case was stalled because they asked the UCI for their opinion regarding the studies. They asked WADA too, but while WADA said they had no intention of getting involved as that was not the protocol, UCI said they'd reply. Then they asked for more time because it was Christmas. Eventually the RFEC decided to stop waiting and go forward with the ruling, so apparently it was UCI's fault.

 

[offbyone]

I'm not talking about the RFEC ruling. I'm talking about WADA code and UCI rules accordingly. If this ruling by RFEC is not appealed or it is upheld by CAS, then every doper in the future is going to claim contamination from something, and demand that it's proven otherwise.

RFEC operates on it's own planet. If they had their way cycling should join the WWE.

+1

You are very correct. If in fact the appeal is pushed through this would give credibility to the system. It is hard for me not to assume that the UCI and WADA aren't going to fall over though.

 

[meandmygitane]

According to the RFEC, the case was stalled because they asked the UCI for their opinion regarding the studies. They asked WADA too, but while WADA said they had no intention of getting involved as that was not the protocol, UCI said they'd reply. Then they asked for more time because it was Christmas. Eventually the RFEC decided to stop waiting and go forward with the ruling, so apparently it was UCI's fault.

Thanks. Hm, what do you make of it? UCI incompetence, UCI trying to fumble the case away, RFEC not telling the truth? Could be any really, in my mind.

Hopefully some interesting information on how and why they came to this decision will be made public rather soon.

 

[DAOTEC]

According to the RFEC, the case was stalled because they asked the UCI for their opinion regarding the studies.

Highlight: They asked WADA too, but while WADA said they had no intention of getting involved as that was not the protocol, UCI said they'd reply. Then they asked for more time because it was Christmas.

Eventually the RFEC decided to stop waiting and go forward with the ruling, so apparently it was UCI's fault.

Yeah, and my mother is 199 years old now hahahahaa them WADA clowns are just like hanging chads ...

them will be dealth with in the short term. Of much more impo >

Contador on Twitter: “Hoy es un día de justicia”

("Today is a day of justice, with mixed feelings between joy and sadness for all the damage in recent months. Leaves a mark!".)

("Thank you all because you are the ones who encouraged me when I was not, and I hope to compensate it on the races".)

A bloody Brutal Hero you are Pistolero
here is your new jersey 2011:

 

[indurain666]

I think we should let Alberto's legs do the talking: 2011 yellow jersey after passing another thousand of doping controls. Cadel Evans and Andy Schleck must be crapping their pants.

I am sorry for all the haters here, it must be a very very tough day today.

Really dreaded TDF 2011 was going to be a contest between bunch of wimps/wheel suckers.

 

[Scansorial]

I wonder though, if WADA could use the test results in front of CAS to suggest that a transfusion is a more plausible explanation than tainted beef. Not that he is guilty of transfusing his blood but that by probably having done so he has made the most likely reason the clen showed up be that he was illegally using it earlier in the year rather than being contaminated by a steak. Convoluted perhaps, but no more so than the other places we have been in this case.

Why does a blood transfusion have to be more likely, though? If they can even show that it's equally likely, wouldn't it still be up to Contador to present more evidence that it was actually tainted meat?

The code says "the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system." If tainted meat is only equally as likely as a blood transfusion, that wouldn't be enough, would it?

I'm with a lot of you guys that would love to hear more specific details about the evidence they presented that supposedly rules out a blood transfusion.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think we should let Alberto's legs do the talking: 2011 yellow jersey after passing another thousand of doping controls. Cadel Evans and Andy Schleck must be crapping their pants.

I am sorry for all the haters here, it must be a very very tough day today.

Really dreaded TDF 2011 was going to be a contest between bunch of wimps/wheel suckers.

Yeah, thank god it will be another riveting contest between wimps, wheelsuckers and dopers.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think we should let Alberto's legs do the talking: 2011 yellow jersey after passing another thousand of doping controls. Cadel Evans and Andy Schleck must be crapping their pants.

I am sorry for all the haters here, it must be a very very tough day today.

Really dreaded TDF 2011 was going to be a contest between bunch of wimps/wheel suckers.

You are not really suggesting that you think he is tested 2.74 times per day are you?

 

[robertocarlos]

i agree with doa. why didn't the uci dealt with it from the start? i mean were they just try to avoid expenses, or just to put the spanish federation on the spot? i there had been hard evidence they would have been all over it and claim that they are cleaning the sport, but no they went the other way. do i think contador is inocent? no! do i believe that politicians are honest? nooo! are there professional athletes that are clean and honest politicians? probably.
i am not going to start to cry about it. sometime we spend too much time on forums and not enough on the road. do i like contador as a bike racer? yes that is the reason that i think he should be let go. do most of the forum that is against contador do not have bias agaist him? of course they do. would they like the guy they would not be wasting their time here. saying that coni or the italians are cleaner what a joke. they let a guy like ricco slipp by for like 10 years. why can australians race clean, well nobody cares in their home country and the uci can just look the other way because that want to open the international market, like they did twice in the us.

 

[hrotha]

You are not really suggesting that you think he is tested 2.74 times per day are you?

It hasn't been widely reported but Contador did use the "most tested athlete" line during his press conference after the initial one-year ban.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The code says "the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system." If tainted meat is only equally as likely as a blood transfusion, that wouldn't be enough, would it?

It's not really an issue of what is more likely, or what's equally likely. The onus was on Contador to prove he accidentally ingested it, he failed to do so. Period. End of story, he's guilty. Two-year ban. That's what the rules clearly say.

RFEC clouded the issue by altering the interpretations of the rules. Judging by a lot of reaction to it, with many now believing that proof must be given by ruling committees not only that it was in his system, but how it got there, I'd say RFEC has succeeded.

Got it hrotha, Hugh. We agree.

 

[DAOTEC]

Think this is some footage from AC on VEO7 tonight.

Vid: [http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2011/español-16/02/2011-Act-00:51h.html]

 

[hrotha]

Think this is some footage from AC on VEO7 tonight.

Vid: [http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2011/español-16/02/2011-Act-00:51h.html]

[tinfoil hat on]

Interestingly, Veo7 and their first AC interview have been credited with being key in shifting the perception of this case. Veo7 has the rights to the Giro. Contador is now riding the Giro.

[tinfoil hat off]

 

[Mambo95]

I dont think it represents justice of any kind. I would bet my house that he doped. But i view life through on own terms.

I think everyone is doping, and i strongly oppose the sport of scape goating, putting everyones sins on a got (in this case Alberto) and beating it out of the village for it to starve so that everyone else can claim clean cycling.

Also i think Contador is a better ambassador for the sport than Andrew.

So i hope he will be free to ride.

Just so it doesn't disappear.

 

[runninboy]

It's not really an issue of what is more likely, or what's equally likely. The onus was on Contador to prove he accidentally ingested it, he failed to do so. Period. End of story, he's guilty. Two-year ban. That's what the rules clearly say.

RFEC clouded the issue by altering the interpretations of the rules. Judging by a lot of reaction to it, with many now believing that proof must be given by ruling committees not only that it was in his system, but how it got there, I'd say RFEC has succeeded.

Got it hrotha, Hugh. We agree.

+1
The rules are very clear here, the only chance he could have had for exoneration or reduced sentence was to prove something that in this case was impossible to prove. Sorry those are the rules. I do not wish to impune a country or federation, but it is pretty clear that the RFEC took a slanted view towards this whole procedure. They had a verdict in mind and looked for a way to render it. The fact that a top ranking politician got involved also gives a little credibility to those who question Spanish justice. I know this is not looked upon favorably here but at some point you look at the facts at hand and come to a conclusion that maybe come countries are a little more aggressive in protecting their own. I haven't heard Hilary Clinton tweeting anyone in regards to any investigations here in the US for example.

What is even worse to me is this decision might give an "out" to keep from taking the case to CAS.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not really an issue of what is more likely, or what's equally likely. The onus was on Contador to prove he accidentally ingested it, he failed to do so. Period. End of story, he's guilty. Two-year ban. That's what the rules clearly say.

RFEC clouded the issue by altering the interpretations of the rules. Judging by a lot of reaction to it, with many now believing that proof must be given by ruling committees not only that it was in his system, but how it got there, I'd say RFEC has succeeded.

Got it hrotha, Hugh. We agree.

To that end I thought this take was spot on;

Daniel Friebe, Procycling European Editor and Cyclingnews correspondent My feeling is that this case (and more generally article 296 of the UCI’s regulations) sets an extremely dangerous precedent. The UCI couldn’t show conclusively that Contador had deliberately taken clenbuterol? OK, does that mean the same now applies when a rider tests positive for EPO? Does the testing or judging authority now have to produce a blood-spattered syringe as well as the electropherogram that used to suffice?

Or am I missing something here? Because if I’m not, the days of parched Tour de France riders declining the water-bottles handed to them by spectators on Alpine and Pyreneen climbs could be a thing of the past; whereas once a contaminated drink was those riders’ greatest fear, now it could be the perfect, fictitious alibi for a positive test.

If Spain wanted to reverse its image as a kind of doping Eldorado, it could frankly have done without its prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero pleading Contador’s innocence. Did Contador not have a handsomely paid Italian lawyer to do that for him? Also, on that topic, if Contador really didn’t derive any benefit from the minute quantities of clenbuterol in his system, has he at least now profitted from the kind of financial doping Arsène Wenger has maligned for years in football?

In other words, is the only real difference between Contador and someone like the American Tom Zirbel, banned for two years after accidentally ingesting the hormone DHEA, the money they were able to invest in their defence? Going forward, those are perhaps the wider issues raised by this sorry saga: having established that a performance has come with the aid of illegal drugs or methods, how can governing bodies ensure that what occurs next isn’t also financially and politically enhanced?

 

[runninboy]

I think that's what I'm trying to say? If transfusion can't really be ruled out, it doesn't have to be ironclad just plausible, then we go back to looking at the case on it's merits. Was there clen in his system? Science says....yes. Guilty, case closed.

I agree. You don't have to prove transfusion, just that it is a plausible explanation, so if it is plausible that means accidental ingestion cannot be "proved". In addition i remember he supposedly ate the "tainted" meat on the rest day and then enjoyed it so much he ate it again the next day.
If the meat was tainted enough to show up in testing after one meal
How is it not "tainted" enough to show up after two meals when you would actually have more of the drug in your system? The test on the day after he tested positive was negative, when there should have actually been more clen in his system.
However if he only transfused on the rest day the amount of clen in his system would get smaller & smaller. Which is what happened.

 

[Publicus]

I agree. You don't have to prove transfusion, just that it is a plausible explanation, so if it is plausible that means accidental ingestion cannot be "proved". In addition i remember he supposedly ate the "tainted" meat on the rest day and then enjoyed it so much he ate it again the next day.
If the meat was tainted enough to show up in testing after one meal
How is it not "tainted" enough to show up after two meals when you would actually have more of the drug in your system? The test on the day after he tested positive was negative, when there should have actually been more clen in his system.
However if he only transfused on the rest day the amount of clen in his system would get smaller & smaller. Which is what happened.

I haven't followed this case that closely, but IIRC he tested positive for 3 consecutive days, with a spike on the 3rd day (after declining for 2 days)--I think there was an error on the 2nd but I can't recall where I read or heard that.

 

[joe_papp]

What a mess.
...

I find it nigh impossible to come to any opinion how much justice is done here. From both an employment law pov, cycling rules pov and a doping pov. [I fear that my suspicions about the latter are on slightly firmer ground though, but ultimately speculative to a large degree too].

...

Anyhoo. Another moment when not a lot of parties look good. They all came out with fingers burnt and black marks against them, I think. Not a good day for the sport, whichever way you turn it. I just hope lessons are learned and something constructive will come out of it. I suspect that will be a lot less than needed, given past experiences with "watershed" doping moments in cycling.

I agree w/ you. This case was a no-win from the start and I stick by my feeling that it would be extremely unsatisfying to see Contador banned for any length of time for clenbuterol, which, while subject to no-threshold/zero-tolerance and therefore inexcusable to have in the body, can be argued to have appeared as a result of contamination.

At least the discovery of exogenous EPO/CERA or some purely-doping related product or practice would have removed the doubt that the normal (non-Clinic reading) public would have about sanctioning for that minute trace of clenbuterol.

I keep thinking about poor Tom Zirbel, who also argued contamination but drew a full two-year ban. Maybe it was USADA/USA Cycling who did the wrong thing and the RCF did the right thing by not banning Contador. Problem is everyone can argue it every which way because it's so not an airtight case.

I was offended though by the person on Twitter who claimed that I didn't support a robust anti-doping movement just because I wasn't braying about the injustice of Contador being cleared.

 

[joe_papp]

It's not really an issue of what is more likely, or what's equally likely... That's what the rules clearly say.

RFEC clouded the issue by altering the interpretations of the rules. Judging by a lot of reaction to it, with many now believing that proof must be given by ruling committees not only that it was in his system, but how it got there, I'd say RFEC has succeeded.

Since when did what the rules say become an impediment to achieving a desired-outcome?

Did anyone here seriously think that Contador was going to draw a ban and lose a TdF for a micro-micro-dose of clenbuterol? The same day that Contador is cleared, the Cologne lab warns that it's absolutely a plausible risk to return a positive for clenbuterol from food contamination (using Far East cattle industry as example of threat) and urges athletes to be extra-vigilant.

 

[jaylew]

I think we should let Alberto's legs do the talking: 2011 yellow jersey after passing another thousand of doping controls. Cadel Evans and Andy Schleck must be crapping their pants.

I am sorry for all the haters here, it must be a very very tough day today.

Really dreaded TDF 2011 was going to be a contest between bunch of wimps/wheel suckers.

I don't know. After that brutal Giro, we'll just have to see what he has left in the tank...assuming he lines up at both, of course.

 

[Polish]

Since when did what the rules say become an impediment to achieving a desired-outcome?

Did anyone here seriously think that Contador was going to draw a ban and lose a TdF for a micro-micro-dose of clenbuterol? The same day that Contador is cleared, the Cologne lab warns that it's absolutely a plausible risk to return a positive for clenbuterol from food contamination (using Far East cattle industry as example of threat) and urges athletes to be extra-vigilant.

Why would the riders need to be extra vigilant?
Seems you will not face a ban for eating clen meat.