Contador acquitted

[Winterfold]

Just out of curiosity is the plastic used in mountain bike hydration packs the same as blood bags?

Ah for sure I was mountain biking every day in the offseason and on my rest days too. Even when I was training I was using Camelbak and not bottles etc etc

 

[GJB123]

The connection between what happened with Ricco and the decision in the Contador case is not being talked about nearly enough. This is one of the things that angers me the most about the ruling by the Spanish Cycling Federation, a ruling that was downright irresponsible in light of what happened with Ricco.

It would be easy due to Ricco's track record to dismiss him as one bad apple who did something stupid, but does anyone honestly believe that he has been the only rider blood doping? It is becoming increasingly clear that cycling continues to have a widespread problem with blood doping and you have to wonder how many other riders are out there transfusing their own blood under similar dangerous and unsupervised medical conditions.

While nobody can say for sure where the Clenbuterol came from, I still feel the most likely explanation was that Contador was blood doping. This case represented a chance for cycling's governing bodies to establish a precedent that might have at least made riders start to think twice about blood doping. If WADA and the UCI fail to appeal this decision they will be giving the green light for other riders to continue blood doping, it will be just a matter of time before someone doesn't get lucky like Ricco and ends up dead.

Where are the riders on this issue? Will any of them have the guts to put their own interests aside and have the courage to criticize the Contador decision and start talking openly about blood doping? In light of all that is going on I have to applaud riders like Kohl and Landis who flawed as they are at least finally showed some responsibility by talking about what has been going on with blood doping.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this case was never about blood doping, no matter how much you would like it to be. If you want to do something about blood doping, convict and punish a rider for blood doping, not for a Clen-positive. Like someone said uphere, it is like convicting a murderer for tax evasion and fooling yourself that you are sending a clear message to those with an intention or preponderance to kill.

I fail to see how a conviction of Contador would have any rider stop using blood doping.

In this respect Ricco's predicament might be much more effective in putting riders of blood doping as a conviction of Contador would ever be. And even then most riders will prove to be foolhearted, I fear.

Regards
GJ

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this case was never about blood doping, no matter how much you would like it to be. If you want to do something about blood doping, convict and punish a rider for blood doping, not for a Clen-positive. Like someone said uphere, it is like convicting a murderer for tax evasion and fooling yourself that you are sending a clear message to those with an intention or preponderance to kill.

I fail to see how a conviction of Contador would have any rider stop using blood doping.

In this respect Ricco's predicament might be much more effective in putting riders of blood doping as a conviction of Contador would ever be. And even then most riders will prove to be foolhearted, I fear.

Regards
GJ

I think a better analogy is that there are more ways of convicting someone of murder than having an eye witness identify the defendant as the person who shot the victim. Science allows us to convict on a number of different kinds of evidence.

Likewise in cycling, you shouldn't need to catch a cyclist with a syringe in his arm to prove guilt. This is about opening the door to other ways of establishing guilt; whether it stops anyone else doping is a different issue.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Ok lets run with this 3 per day number. 3 cows per day divided by how many countries, then divide by how many stores and shops that sell the beef. Then further divide that by how many people eat beef per day. I'm not sure what that number is but its got to be real small, thats the chance he accidently ingested it.

So you're tellin' me there's a chance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

 

[scribe]

So you're tellin' me there's a chance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

Yes!

But there is a higher statistical probability that morons ran to the doctor because they feared clen poisoning as a result of Contador's claim.

 

[GJB123]

I think a better analogy is that there are more ways of convicting someone of murder than having an eye witness identify the defendant as the person who shot the victim. Science allows us to convict on a number of different kinds of evidence.

Likewise in cycling, you shouldn't need to catch a cyclist with a syringe in his arm to prove guilt. This is about opening the door to other ways of establishing guilt; whether it stops anyone else doping is a different issue.

Correct a ssuch, but in this case, if you are going all poenal on my a$$ (no pun intended), do you know of any murderer who had the burden of proof that he didn't do the killing? Even beter do you know of any murderer who got convicted for murder because he evaded tax?

A better analogy wouldbe to say that AC got arrested at a murder scene with his clothes drenche din the victims blood. You would probably convict immerdiately based on the strict liability rule that he shouldn't have bene present and shouldn't have gotten his clothes dirty, serves him right. Whereas I might stuill entertain the thought that AC's claim may be right that he tried to help and resuscitate the victim, hence his clothes getting all bloody. See the difference?

Added to that, last time I checked AC wasn't prosecuted for blood doping, wasn't provisionally suspended for blood doping and wasn't exnorated of blood doping. This case, like it or not, was always about the Clen and nothing else. The only time blood doping entered the picture was when AC had to show that out of the 4 possible reasons Clen got in his system, blood doping wasn't the most likely one.

Regards
GJ

 

[roundabout]

Let's read

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2011/02/16/resolucion.pdf

 

[sniper]

Lovely oldschool German slamming of AC:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/Y5j38E/3907340/Koenig-Albert-der-Ahnungslose.html

 

[hrotha]

Reading the ruling. First thing that stands out: pages 15-16 or thereabouts. The Committee points out that, because UCI explicitly included the four theories in their accusation (food contamination, blood transfusion, microdosing and tainted supplements), forcing the RFEC to only consider those hypotheses and Contador to only defend himself from them, if something new and different incriminating evidence should surface later on, trying Contador based on them might be a breach of Spanish law. Now, the actovegin theory wasn't included...

 

[hrotha]

By the way, I've been saying the transfusion theory was ruled out in a report by the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency. That wasn't completely accurate. The transfusion theory was ruled out by Dr. Tomás Martín Jiménez in a report that was part of Contador's defense documents and which was evaluated and confirmed as scientifically sound by the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (they evaluated the other documents too).

 

[sniper]

By the way, I've been saying the transfusion theory was ruled out in a report by the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency. That wasn't completely accurate. The transfusion theory was ruled out by Dr. Tomás Martín Jiménez in a report that was part of Contador's defense documents and which was evaluated and confirmed as scientifically sound by the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (they evaluated the other documents too).

thanks for that info.

man, what a farce.
Do you know if we can see that report by Jimenez?
I saw a reference to it in the previous RFEC report. It was about how, for pharmacokinetic(!) reasons, it couldn't have a been bloodtransusion.

 

[hrotha]

The Committee considers Contador has proved his story of the Irún meat is true. It acknowledges he can't prove it was contaminated and that it caused his positive, but considers the principle of the balance of probabilities has been satisfied: while WADA said meat contamination was unlikely but not impossible, the Committee accepts Contador's evidence that rule out the alternative theories as impossible. Since this is the EU we're talking about, Contador couldn't reasonably be expected to test the meat before consuming it, hence no negligence of his own.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[hrotha]

thanks for that info.

man, what a farce.
Do you know if we can see that report by Jimenez?
I saw a reference to it in the previous RFEC report. It was about how, for pharmacokinetic(!) reasons, it couldn't have a been bloodtransusion.

That part of the definitive ruling was the same or almost the same as the ruling proposal, no changes there. As far as I know, the appendixes where these reports are supposed to be included are not available.

 

[Hugh Januss]

From Podium Cafe

 

[Cobblestones]

Since you put much stock in the number of contaminated cattle...

Read the thread. I didn't come up with those numbers. Publicus did. I just said "ok, let's play with these numbers". So really, you should ask Publicus where those numbers come from.

It was my reading that Publicus used those numbers to defend Contador. To point out that there is a finite chance that the clen really does come from contaminated meat. I just ran with these numbers and compared them (tongue in cheek) to the probability of a 'refill' on the rest day before week 3 of the TdF by a major contender.

In my opinion, the probabilistic analysis is irrelevant. It only requires one contaminated cattle at the wrong place and time to give an accidental positive. Now, my reading of the strict liability doesn't involve any probabilistic consideration. A rider is liable for what's in his system. There is leeway concerning the sanctioning "if he or she can establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal how the substance entered his or her system". Note the positive statement here: 'to establish', not: 'present probabilistic data which make it more likely' or some such.

I also note that regardless whether it was intended or accidental, "if the sample came from an in-competition test, then the results of the athlete for that competition are automatically invalidated". Meaning he's supposed to lose his TdF win no matter what according to the strict liability. Funny how that has been swept under the rug so far.

 

[Lajeretta4Ever]

From Podium Cafe

Looking at that picture, I think Alberto needs to raise his saddle a bit or he is going to have serious knee problems come Tour time.

That picture is classic!

 

[sniper]

That part of the definitive ruling was the same or almost the same as the ruling proposal, no changes there. As far as I know, the appendixes where these reports are supposed to be included are not available.

thanks for the heads-up.

 

[Cobblestones]

In the famous words of one John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious."

At least introducing a threshold would seriously limit the number of false positives, for lack of a better word. Now that might mean zilch to you, but to most rational people with any sense of justice or law, that is a big thing.

Add to that the problem that it is nigh impossible to prove accidental ingestion, because basically you have digested the evidence itself. So either you introduce a threshold and/or remove strict liabililty rules and/or you allow evidence in the sense that you can prove something by showing other options te be less likely (as in this case). In a perfect legal world we would do all three.

Regards
GJ

In the famous words of Al Gore (as depicted by South Park): I'm super cereal.

Read my post again.

Clenbuterol is prohibited by the EU in food-producing animals. It is (AFAIK) not approved for any therapeutic use in humans either within the EU. Btw. before you complain about my Eurocentric views, both statements hold true for a much wider range of countries, but I'm too lazy to research the precise extend.

Anyway, the only way to get clen into your system (living in countries for which the two above rules apply) are by illegal use (either in the food industry, or your own illegal use of prescription medication).

Now I can understand that you might balk at strict liability when it concerns illegal use in the food industry. I would contest your assertion that it is impossible to show when that happens. For starters, it's never just one cattle which is contaminated, usually these kinds of manipulation are done to a herd at once, so there's usually more evidence than just one single steak. Second, there's always parts of the cattle which won't be consumed at once. Parts of the cattle will find their way to a lot of other products and those pieces might be available for testing. Third, there's the hair test of the athlete. And I could go on with plenty of other things which could be done if the will is there. My understanding is that none of that was ever even attempted. It was portrayed from the beginning that it's virtually impossible to show accidental ingestion of clen. This is not true. It's a smokescreen set up for the benefit of one person.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Correct a ssuch, but in this case, if you are going all poenal on my a$$ (no pun intended), do you know of any murderer who had the burden of proof that he didn't do the killing? Even beter do you know of any murderer who got convicted for murder because he evaded tax?

A better analogy wouldbe to say that AC got arrested at a murder scene with his clothes drenche din the victims blood. You would probably convict immerdiately based on the strict liability rule that he shouldn't have bene present and shouldn't have gotten his clothes dirty, serves him right. Whereas I might stuill entertain the thought that AC's claim may be right that he tried to help and resuscitate the victim, hence his clothes getting all bloody. See the difference?

Added to that, last time I checked AC wasn't prosecuted for blood doping, wasn't provisionally suspended for blood doping and wasn't exnorated of blood doping. This case, like it or not, was always about the Clen and nothing else. The only time blood doping entered the picture was when AC had to show that out of the 4 possible reasons Clen got in his system, blood doping wasn't the most likely one.

Regards
GJ

This last point is true. Actually a better analogy might be where there isn't obviously a crime. Say someone goes missing when there's a spate of missing people, some of whom end up found murdered and you connect the defendant to that missing person somehow, AC's wearing a watch that the missing person used to own maybe. Then you prosecute him for the theft of the watch because you haven't got a body for the murder charge. And in this analogy it just so happens that the sentence for stealing a watch is the same as the sentence for murdering someone and hiding the body, so the charge is theft even though every one knows that the aim is to put the murderer behind bars.

Analogy wars -

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I also note that regardless whether it was intended or accidental, "if the sample came from an in-competition test, then the results of the athlete for that competition are automatically invalidated". Meaning he's supposed to lose his TdF win no matter what according to the strict liability. Funny how that has been swept under the rug so far.

Yes, excellent post. That's what I was trying to point out before, but I think you said it better in your post. It's the point of discussion no one wants to discuss.

 

[quiensabe]

Mathematics

The Committee considers Contador has proved his story of the Irún meat is true. It acknowledges he can't prove it was contaminated and that it caused his positive, but considers the principle of the balance of probabilities has been satisfied: while WADA said meat contamination was unlikely but not impossible, the Committee accepts Contador's evidence that rule out the alternative theories as impossible. Since this is the EU we're talking about, Contador couldn't reasonably be expected to test the meat before consuming it, hence no negligence of his own.

That's it in a nutshell.

Sounds like you have some higher education and know of the principle called Occam's Razor. "Given several theories, the simplest answer is usually the correct one."
One journalist's opinion-piece asked what must be one of the stupidest questions ever - Where's the meat, Alberto? Now, if Contador had been informed of the positive test in a timely manner, his legal team might have visited the supplier of the meat, or the slaughterhouse, and carried out tests. Nobody visited these places until months afterwards. And, incidentally, around the end of last year, police raided a dope supplier in the Canary Islands and found that clembuterol had been sold to at least one Spanish cattle breeder. Of course it was an illegal transaction but, so far as I can see, there has been no follow-up on that.
I don't usually believe the cries of "I'm innocent" but in this case I do.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This last point is true. Actually a better analogy might be where there isn't obviously a crime. Say someone goes missing when there's a spate of missing people, some of whom end up found murdered and you connect the defendant to that missing person somehow, AC's wearing a watch that the missing person used to own maybe. Then you prosecute him for the theft of the watch because you haven't got a body for the murder charge. And in this analogy it just so happens that the sentence for stealing a watch is the same as the sentence for murdering someone and hiding the body, so the charge is theft even though every one knows that the aim is to put the murderer behind bars.

Analogy wars -

Oh come on, he did test positive to start this whole process. To me the better analogy would go like this.
Police bust down the door just as Alberto, drenched in blood, is pulling the knife out of the body. He is found innocent after his lawyers show that sometimes in stab wounds the blood can spurt a long distance, so he could have been on the other side of the room and still have gotten covered in the victims blood.

Let Analogy Wars continue.

 

[uspostal]

This last point is true. Actually a better analogy might be where there isn't obviously a crime. Say someone goes missing when there's a spate of missing people, some of whom end up found murdered and you connect the defendant to that missing person somehow, AC's wearing a watch that the missing person used to own maybe. Then you prosecute him for the theft of the watch because you haven't got a body for the murder charge. And in this analogy it just so happens that the sentence for stealing a watch is the same as the sentence for murdering someone and hiding the body, so the charge is theft even though every one knows that the aim is to put the murderer behind bars.

Analogy wars -

In the USA some states have a 3 strike law. Commit 3 felonies and you go to jail for life !!!. The 3rd felony can be capitol murder or car theft, if its your 3rd felony life baby no if ands or butts about it. It seems to me in cycling 1 strike is enough to warrant a big penalty. I have a hard time trying to understand why people don't get 0 tolerance, he knew the rules I'm sure he signed something to that effect.

 

[c&cfan]

please someone explain this to me (not you sniper, since you dont think with your brain):

- it is ilegal to dope (in cycling).still, ALL OF THEM (that are trying to win) DOPE.

but, we know that meat industry is not tested like cycling (its a much more tough and wild world there, were all of them are trying to win) so it is much more easier to avoid the positives (in meat industry).

-still, some of you dont see this (or maybe you are just stupid or you dont have enough "talent") , and are clearly saying "there is no clen because it is legal in europe, also, no positives.". please remember this: the most tested athlete in the world: i never tested positive.

this is just stupid as it can get. sorry, but it is true. obviously that clen (and clken look-a-likes) are used in a huge amount.

next:

why are you talking like all the dopers are going to use contador as an excuse?
"people" like ricco have cera because of meat?

next:

injustice? i see injustice.. but not in contador being acquitted. i see injustice in li being banned.

next: obviously there must be an minimun amount of clen (and stuff like clen) that isnt seen as doping. isnt it clear? wake up.. dont you know how life works? anyone trying to win?

next: sorry folks. i real enjoy watching contador in his bike. does it makes me a fanboy? i dont now, but maybe. i am also a lancefanboy then. still, if he (contador)is guilty, you can "kill" him. he deserves it.

but 50 pico of clen?????????????? even if there is an 90% chance of cheating, he can be innocent. so, in the real world, he shouldnt be banned because of that. were the others banned?some of them. but cant you see were's the problem here? are you so blind?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Disagree

Cyclingnews.com continues poisoning the public opinion when releases this headline: McQuaid criticises Spain after Contador decision

well, I have read what Pat says and I don't see any critic to RFEC, his reaction is measured and based in "we have to study the papers, he is allowed to race, etc".

I don't know about the use of 'poisoning.' They are supposed to report with not much editorializing in their news niche and they did in this case. The fact that The Clinic content is not managed to irrelevance and probably under a great deal of legal babysitting on any given month means they split the journalism off from the editorializing. Which is right.

Did Pat want Pharmador riding? Absolutely. That's why Pharmador failed doping control and there are no consequences. But that's an inference, and if CN published that, it would be an editorial.

Whatever Pat says really doesn't matter and he knows it. The actions of the UCI speak for themselves. I'm not a betting person, but even I would make the bet that if there was the appearance of an investigation on the UCI's part, it would intentionally lead to no new action resembling an appeal.