- Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterg
All you guys/girls; I know you just LOVE posting & ranting, but would like to remind you that, in LAW, the presumption is INNOCENCE!!
It's time we started to apply this to athletes.
If Contador is guilty of something, prove it BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, or F**k off, stop whining, & get out & ride your bikes more instead of sitting around all day typing ****!
Sorry, letter of the law, Contador guilty, doping 2 years, no grey area or even the colors of the Spanish flag here.
Cut and dried.
Originally Posted by Peterg
All you guys/girls; I know you just LOVE posting & ranting, but would like to remind you that, in LAW, the presumption is INNOCENCE!!
It's time we started to apply this to athletes.
If Contador is guilty of something, prove it BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, or F**k off, stop whining, & get out & ride your bikes more instead of sitting around all day typing ****!
Sorry, letter of the law, Contador guilty, doping 2 years, no grey area or even the colors of the Spanish flag here.
Cut and dried.
- Jun 16, 2009
- 19,654
- 2
- 0
joe_papp said:
No it can't. Less than 1 in 20,000 chance clen could be in the steak. It proves RFEC is corrupt. The proof is that he had Clenbuterol in his sample. The defence of clen in the steak is not plausible. That means he has no case & no explanation. So the findings of Clen can only be assumed as evidence of doping. So why isn't he sanctioned? Complete inconsistency.
- Mar 9, 2009
- 539
- 5
- 9,595
Here's a point of view favouring Contador:
Contador Suspension: The Dopiest Anti-Doping Penalty Ever? [url=http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=1054]http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=1054[/url]
He references a few studies to back his points
Contador Suspension: The Dopiest Anti-Doping Penalty Ever? [url=http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=1054]http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=1054[/url]
He references a few studies to back his points
The cycling world is just borrowing from the WWE in writing the Contador script. First busted for drugs. Then suspended and disgraced for a year. Now acquitted - I bet he comes back for a victory in this year's Royal Rumble, I mean TdF. It's just like John Cena being fired by the WWE. Next, we'll have a Contador pay-per-view event to keep developing the storyline. More popcorn, please!!!
- Mar 17, 2009
- 11,341
- 1
- 22,485
For all the folks suggesting that RFEC is some how bending the rules, please note that Ovtcharov did not directly prove that the clen came from food. He conducted one hair follicle test that was negative. He did not bring back the food that supposedly contained the clen. Just proved that he wasn't using by pointing to a negative test. Heck there was the possibility he was blood doping (not likely, but it wasn't ruled out by the hair follicle test).
Alberto has done, essentially the same thing, by pointing to FAR more negative tests (I don't think its reaching to say he was tested FAR more than Ovtcharov last year) to point to the absence of clen use over a longer period of time (he raced every month from February to July (save May)). And he has bio-passport, which I'm pretty sure table tennis doesn't use, that can bolster his claim that he did not use a transfusion.
At the end of the day, the issue of whether WADA/UCI will appeal comes down to this: can they validate the plasticizer test within time alloted for them to file an appeal. If not, game over IMO. The precedent has been set with the Ovtcharov case (again NO direct proof that it was from food contamination).
Alberto has done, essentially the same thing, by pointing to FAR more negative tests (I don't think its reaching to say he was tested FAR more than Ovtcharov last year) to point to the absence of clen use over a longer period of time (he raced every month from February to July (save May)). And he has bio-passport, which I'm pretty sure table tennis doesn't use, that can bolster his claim that he did not use a transfusion.
At the end of the day, the issue of whether WADA/UCI will appeal comes down to this: can they validate the plasticizer test within time alloted for them to file an appeal. If not, game over IMO. The precedent has been set with the Ovtcharov case (again NO direct proof that it was from food contamination).
Altitude said:
Where do the rules state that the only option for someone who has positive A+B for a banned substance is a sanction?
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/02/two-doping-cases-exonerated-vs-punished.html
Do you think the authority in RSA (like the Contador case) was using a different set of rules? If Contador's defense was as convincing as the one for the methylhexanamine why should he be sanctioned? Were other cases claiming contamination as comprehensive as these defenses?
I'm not saying I believe Contador's contamination story, but it's not me he has to convince, it's the Spanish authorities and probably now CAS.
- Jun 9, 2010
- 2,007
- 0
- 0
131313 said:
That is the probability made for the research made in the whole EU... but for the Pais Vasco only 100 cattles were tested... so the poblation wasnt enough... to be accurate 5000 or 6000 should have been tested... and that was one of the points in the Contador's defense... also they found that this meat provider was caught in 2000 using Clen in his cattles...
I think that the whole thing here in the clinic is cuz We know that this positive was made for a blood transfusion but what would be our opinion if we didnt know that...
and for those ppl that says that Spain is full of dopers... from about 10000 tests made in 2010 only the 1,24% were positive... take a look to your own countries and then talk...
also stop this thing about that RFEC is corrupt and stuff, only because you dont believe the "proofs" that AC gave doesnt mean that everyone should think like you... now the ball is with the UCI and WADA, if they dont believe AC well appeal the desicion... fair enough right?
- Mar 17, 2009
- 11,341
- 1
- 22,485
auscyclefan94 said:
Do you understand that a 1 in 20,000 chance is a meaningful number when the population of cattle slaughtered in the EU is somewhere around 28,000,000? Not to mention the millions of carcasses that are imported from Brazil and elsewhere? Not to mention, once you start dealing with statistical sampling, there is this thing called a sampling error that must be account for in your analysis.
Simply declaring his defense as implausible because, well you declared it, doesn't carry any more weight than someone saying he didn't do because he didn't. That may work in the school yard (and the clinic), but that won't get you pass elementary logic in most high schools.
- Oct 11, 2010
- 777
- 0
- 0
Ferminal said:
Isn't that the point of drug testing? To catch and ban athletes with banned substances in their system?
"Somebody spiked my water bottle. I can't prove it but it's the truth."
"A road side spectator jammed a syringe in my *** when I rode by. I didn't inject that EPO."
Anybody can make up a BS story about how something got into their system. Unless they can prove it, they should be sanctioned.
- May 13, 2009
- 1,864
- 345
- 11,180
From Contador to Organizational Corruption - thoughts/opinions
Dude, I DIDN'T SAY that the level that was found in Contador's sample could be caused by contamination. I don't even know for sure that the methodolgies used to come-up w/ whatever statistics are being bandied-about by the anti-dopers and the defense are sound scientifically. I said, in a string of posts including one in which I reference the article in question, that the warning issued by the Cologne lab yesterday made it clear in specific terms that clenbuterol contamination could result from environmental sources, and that I thought the next discussion w/in WADA and the national ADA's would probably have to do w/ setting threshold limits in recognition of the likelihood of athletes returning false positives for clen.
Not sure why there is the need to constantly read into my posts here - and quite a few others - and look for points that can be argued in relation to something else, when in reality I personally am not trying to either defend Contador or show him to be guilty. I said at the beginning of this saga that it was lose-lose and that the UCI probably would have preferred it not to come out, because if they're going to put-away someone in Contador's position, they'd want it to be for something incontestable, like CERA, or homologous blood transfusion or even possession of doping products.
Do I think Contador doped? Maybe. Probably. But would I have thought that the anti-doping movement won a legitimate victory (beyond being technically correct) were they to have banned Contador on the clen charge? Probably not.
It seems to me that there is fanaticism afoot and the assumption that there is all-pervasive corruption at an organizational level at - not just the UCI - but now the Spanish federation as well, begins to sound ever so slightly unbalanced and paranoid (or at least emotionally-involved to a disproportionate degree or otherwise suffering from a difference in perspective). But if you insist...if Landis' case showed anything, it was that labs and national anti-doping agencies are willing to act in some case as unethically as the athletes they're supposed to police. I empathize with everyone who is disappointed that Contador wasn't banned, but I also don't have a problem saying that the world is not black and white, and many rational people accept this - that there are many shades of grey that color all kinds of interactions and situations. But why you would think that not to be the case in anti-doping is beyond me. It varies on a country-to-country level, but doping continues because there exists a culture in which it is seen as normal practice. That culture is under assault, but I personally don't think that becoming Holy Warriors and adopting a Crusade-like mentality is the best way to fight it. Especially not when the very labs and anti-doping agencies aren't untarnished saintly entities pure and white one and all. They're run by human beings, and some of those people lie, cheat, conspire and commit unethical acts while acting in their official roles. Despite those bad apples, however, the labs and WADA and the national ADA's aren't organizationally corrupt. The majority of the staff carry-out their work in support of their mission every day.
And though there may be corrupt individuals in the UCI and the national cycling federations, I don't know of any examples w/ the UCI that rise to the level of criminal offense and likewise I'm hard-pressed to think of one involving a national federation (though I'm sure someone will immediately have one to use in criticizing my statement of opinion). I have yet to see anyone produce clear evidence of actual corruption that rises to the level of a criminal offense, let alone organizational corruption that would substantiate the charge that the UCI is actively complicit as a matter of policy in facilitating doping.
The one example that most people reach for is Armstrong's donation to the UCI. And yet obviously that wasn't something orchestrated at an organizational-level! Sylvia Schenk said as much herself. To quote from cycling news:
Landis's allegation of UCI cover-ups and corruption have yet to be fully investigated, however last week Sylvia Schenk, formerly of the UCI management committee (from 2000 to 2005), warned, "It depends on how you define corruption, whether you only take into account criminal law infringements or the abuse of power for personal advantage, as Transparency International defines it," and called for a full investigation into the UCI.
Like Schenk, Gripper saw no direct corruption at the UCI during her time, although she does recall one of the payments made by Lance Armstrong to the governing body during her early career there.
The seven-time Tour de France winner signed a personal cheque for $25,000 in 2002 and then his management company Capital Sports and Entertainment made a second payment of $100,000 in 2005.
"I think I was actually working at the UCI when one of the payments came in [ed. second payment], and I just remember getting a note from the finance department just saying we've received this from Lance Armstrong, and not really understanding - it was very early when I was there - but there was no cover-up or anything - just the finance clerk saying we'd got this cheque."
Asked if she thought whether it was a mistake to accept any form of donation from an athlete, she added: "I do think you have to be careful in accepting payments from any of your stakeholders, unless there's a very clear reason for doing so. And I think even Pat [McQuaid] has admitted that he considers that it was a mistake to do that. We shouldn't have accepted that payment."
Doping survives because there is a culture of doping that encourages it and makes it possible. I should know - I became deeply enmeshed in it. The principle actors include the riders who dope themselves, the former riders now in staff/mgmt roles who tolerate doping, either openly supporting it or remaining silent and pretending it's not going on or suspecting it's present but not investigating b/c of the risk of scandal and the benefit the doped rider provides; the doctors who administer the stuff, the pharmacists who divert it, couriers, PhD's who organize and monitor the programs; intermediaries who facilitate buying and selling and logistics; sponsors who tacitly accept it and refuse to fight it, or perhaps unintentionally encourage it with unreasonable, unrealistic demands on the riders and general greyhound-dog-treatment of the athletes; the media for not reporting on it (or for then obsessing about it or reporting it disproportionately, helping to create scandals); officials who can be bribed not to administer tests correctly; lab directors who'll intervene to corrupt the process; lazy lab techs who take short-cuts in actually carrying-out the analysis or calibrating the machines; NGB higher-ups who protect individual athletes or entire programs for such things as Olympic preparation; international federation leaders who'll take money to suppress positive test results; anyone who pretends there's not a problem somewhere when they know there is; etc. (add to the list, I'm sure you can)
But I'm uneasy about the claim that the UCI or any other particular group (ex. the media; or: the sponsors) is complicit organizationally in maintaining the culture of doping in sport.
Who/what are you arguing with now, and saying "Wrong" to? It certainly can't be me because I don't know what you're attacking - it isn't the fact that I mentioned what SI reported the Cologne lab claimed to have determined:
"LONDON (AP) - A study by a German doping laboratory has found that humans can inadvertently ingest clenbuterol from eating meat, a finding that would support claims by Alberto Contador and other athletes that contaminated beef caused their positive drug tests.
The German Sports University lab in Cologne - accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency - is warning athletes of the risks of accidental clenbuterol doping when traveling to China."
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...enbuterol.study.0711/index.html#ixzz1E6Vjodbj
At no point have I argued in support of Contador or against him, least of all from a scientific perspective.
auscyclefan94 said:
Dude, I DIDN'T SAY that the level that was found in Contador's sample could be caused by contamination. I don't even know for sure that the methodolgies used to come-up w/ whatever statistics are being bandied-about by the anti-dopers and the defense are sound scientifically. I said, in a string of posts including one in which I reference the article in question, that the warning issued by the Cologne lab yesterday made it clear in specific terms that clenbuterol contamination could result from environmental sources, and that I thought the next discussion w/in WADA and the national ADA's would probably have to do w/ setting threshold limits in recognition of the likelihood of athletes returning false positives for clen.
Not sure why there is the need to constantly read into my posts here - and quite a few others - and look for points that can be argued in relation to something else, when in reality I personally am not trying to either defend Contador or show him to be guilty. I said at the beginning of this saga that it was lose-lose and that the UCI probably would have preferred it not to come out, because if they're going to put-away someone in Contador's position, they'd want it to be for something incontestable, like CERA, or homologous blood transfusion or even possession of doping products.
Do I think Contador doped? Maybe. Probably. But would I have thought that the anti-doping movement won a legitimate victory (beyond being technically correct) were they to have banned Contador on the clen charge? Probably not.
It seems to me that there is fanaticism afoot and the assumption that there is all-pervasive corruption at an organizational level at - not just the UCI - but now the Spanish federation as well, begins to sound ever so slightly unbalanced and paranoid (or at least emotionally-involved to a disproportionate degree or otherwise suffering from a difference in perspective). But if you insist...if Landis' case showed anything, it was that labs and national anti-doping agencies are willing to act in some case as unethically as the athletes they're supposed to police. I empathize with everyone who is disappointed that Contador wasn't banned, but I also don't have a problem saying that the world is not black and white, and many rational people accept this - that there are many shades of grey that color all kinds of interactions and situations. But why you would think that not to be the case in anti-doping is beyond me. It varies on a country-to-country level, but doping continues because there exists a culture in which it is seen as normal practice. That culture is under assault, but I personally don't think that becoming Holy Warriors and adopting a Crusade-like mentality is the best way to fight it. Especially not when the very labs and anti-doping agencies aren't untarnished saintly entities pure and white one and all. They're run by human beings, and some of those people lie, cheat, conspire and commit unethical acts while acting in their official roles. Despite those bad apples, however, the labs and WADA and the national ADA's aren't organizationally corrupt. The majority of the staff carry-out their work in support of their mission every day.
And though there may be corrupt individuals in the UCI and the national cycling federations, I don't know of any examples w/ the UCI that rise to the level of criminal offense and likewise I'm hard-pressed to think of one involving a national federation (though I'm sure someone will immediately have one to use in criticizing my statement of opinion). I have yet to see anyone produce clear evidence of actual corruption that rises to the level of a criminal offense, let alone organizational corruption that would substantiate the charge that the UCI is actively complicit as a matter of policy in facilitating doping.
The one example that most people reach for is Armstrong's donation to the UCI. And yet obviously that wasn't something orchestrated at an organizational-level! Sylvia Schenk said as much herself. To quote from cycling news:
Landis's allegation of UCI cover-ups and corruption have yet to be fully investigated, however last week Sylvia Schenk, formerly of the UCI management committee (from 2000 to 2005), warned, "It depends on how you define corruption, whether you only take into account criminal law infringements or the abuse of power for personal advantage, as Transparency International defines it," and called for a full investigation into the UCI.
Like Schenk, Gripper saw no direct corruption at the UCI during her time, although she does recall one of the payments made by Lance Armstrong to the governing body during her early career there.
The seven-time Tour de France winner signed a personal cheque for $25,000 in 2002 and then his management company Capital Sports and Entertainment made a second payment of $100,000 in 2005.
"I think I was actually working at the UCI when one of the payments came in [ed. second payment], and I just remember getting a note from the finance department just saying we've received this from Lance Armstrong, and not really understanding - it was very early when I was there - but there was no cover-up or anything - just the finance clerk saying we'd got this cheque."
Asked if she thought whether it was a mistake to accept any form of donation from an athlete, she added: "I do think you have to be careful in accepting payments from any of your stakeholders, unless there's a very clear reason for doing so. And I think even Pat [McQuaid] has admitted that he considers that it was a mistake to do that. We shouldn't have accepted that payment."
Doping survives because there is a culture of doping that encourages it and makes it possible. I should know - I became deeply enmeshed in it. The principle actors include the riders who dope themselves, the former riders now in staff/mgmt roles who tolerate doping, either openly supporting it or remaining silent and pretending it's not going on or suspecting it's present but not investigating b/c of the risk of scandal and the benefit the doped rider provides; the doctors who administer the stuff, the pharmacists who divert it, couriers, PhD's who organize and monitor the programs; intermediaries who facilitate buying and selling and logistics; sponsors who tacitly accept it and refuse to fight it, or perhaps unintentionally encourage it with unreasonable, unrealistic demands on the riders and general greyhound-dog-treatment of the athletes; the media for not reporting on it (or for then obsessing about it or reporting it disproportionately, helping to create scandals); officials who can be bribed not to administer tests correctly; lab directors who'll intervene to corrupt the process; lazy lab techs who take short-cuts in actually carrying-out the analysis or calibrating the machines; NGB higher-ups who protect individual athletes or entire programs for such things as Olympic preparation; international federation leaders who'll take money to suppress positive test results; anyone who pretends there's not a problem somewhere when they know there is; etc. (add to the list, I'm sure you can)
But I'm uneasy about the claim that the UCI or any other particular group (ex. the media; or: the sponsors) is complicit organizationally in maintaining the culture of doping in sport.
Cobblestones said:
Who/what are you arguing with now, and saying "Wrong" to? It certainly can't be me because I don't know what you're attacking - it isn't the fact that I mentioned what SI reported the Cologne lab claimed to have determined:
"LONDON (AP) - A study by a German doping laboratory has found that humans can inadvertently ingest clenbuterol from eating meat, a finding that would support claims by Alberto Contador and other athletes that contaminated beef caused their positive drug tests.
The German Sports University lab in Cologne - accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency - is warning athletes of the risks of accidental clenbuterol doping when traveling to China."
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...enbuterol.study.0711/index.html#ixzz1E6Vjodbj
At no point have I argued in support of Contador or against him, least of all from a scientific perspective.
One thing Contador could confirm however, was his impending vegetarianism.
"One thing is clear - I am not going to ingest any more meat," he said
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-there-are-times-when-i-cried
You don't win friends with salad
"One thing is clear - I am not going to ingest any more meat," he said
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-there-are-times-when-i-cried
You don't win friends with salad
- Nov 7, 2009
- 10,656
- 3,919
- 28,180
Escarabajo said:
What does it matter what I believe? You can't convict someone based on what I believe or what you believe.
- Jul 23, 2009
- 2,891
- 1
- 0
The number does not become any more meaningful despite the increase in population. It is still the same ratio, 1:20,000. Very small odds.Publicus said:
- Mar 17, 2009
- 11,341
- 1
- 22,485
pedaling squares said:
Don't disagree. Just pointing out that it is never, ever, ever, ever zero. And so far as I know, no one has provided the sampling error. So it's difficult to assess how accurate the very small ratio actually is, especially when you drill down into the unique data sets.
- May 13, 2009
- 3,093
- 3
- 0
Publicus said:
Ok, let's play with these numbers. Your example produces about 1000 contaminated cattle per year, 3 per day, in the whole EU which is more or less the whole continent of Europe. Now, what is the chance that the leading TdF contender eats a steak from one of these cattle precisely on the second rest day of the most important race of the year?
On the other hand, what is the chance that a GT contender 'refills' during a rest day to get an edge for week three and the blood is slightly contaminated with clen from earlier use?
Does anyone think these probabilities are remotely equal?
- May 13, 2009
- 3,093
- 3
- 0
joe_papp said:
Wrong.
Apparently there's places where clen is used to such a degree that people get clenbuterol poisoning. That means you might ingest a pretty hefty dose by accident. So, if you want to set a threshold which eliminates positives from all accidental contamination from food, you'd have to set it so high that any testing would be meaningless. Hence, you have to put it at some arbitrary lower value. But then you'll still get cases of accidental contamination. So you haven't really gained anything. Better leave it where it is. If accidental contamination can be shown then it can be shown. It really doesn't matter what level it leads to as long as it's accidental.
- Mar 17, 2009
- 11,341
- 1
- 22,485
Cobblestones said:
I'll play along as soon as someone shows me the sampling error, especially for the region where the beef was raised/slaughtered--and I'm almost certain it is higher than you expect (small sample sizes produce large sampling errors).
Listen, I'm not defending Alberto or his argument any further than to say it remains plausible, however unlikely folks may contend that it is.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Tour de Suisse 2025 - Men's (June 15- June 22)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 stage 20: Verrès – Sestrière, 205 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro D'italia 2025 Stage 16: Piazzola sul Brenta – San Valentino- Started by YavorD
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 31K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 Stage 17: San Michele all’Adige – Bormio, 155 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 742
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 32K
Latest posts
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread
- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram