Contador acquitted

[Merckx index]

This really isn't rocket science. Two simple questions follow from Dine's suggestion:

1) Were Bert's DEHP levels really as reported last summer? Can those levels be confirmed?
2) What is the probability of those levels in someone who has not transfused? My reading of the literature suggests that it is possible, but not very likely. But if WADA were really interested in following this up, they could talk to some researchers, and come up with some estimate. They could also demand Bert submit to testing now, as a way of getting some estimate of a baseline. Howman himself said DEHP could be used as contributing evidence.

Even if WADA decides that, because the test is not validated they can't sanction no matter how strongly the DEHP values point to transfusion, the results could be publicized. They would have much the same value in that manner as LA's '99 samples have. Not the basis for a sanction, but clearly announcing to anyone who cares and who isn't in heavy denial that doping almost certainly took place. At least let Bert deal with that.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

I don't think it is far fetched at all. I have been saying all along that from a legal point of view just about everything is amiss with anti-dping regulations, for starters with the strict liability nature of most rules. I therefore wouldn't be surprised at all if that helped sway the RFEC to mitigate the strictness of those rules.

Regards
GJ

Does anybody know what is in the WADA rules regarding being subordinate to National law, or International Conventions, i.e. United Nations or EU Directives?

Normally every set of laws, contract or agreements define it's position regards other existing or superior laws.

If we could know the position of WADA in this regard, it would be helpful.

 

[hrotha]

You guys know I don't believe Contador and I want him suspended, but to be fair I must say it looks like no one outside of Spain has bothered to read the RFEC's ruling.

Commening on the doping charges that were dropped by the RFEC, Dine criticized Contador’s defence. “The substance is strictly prohibited”, Dine said, adding: “That’s confusing and it’s a serious problem of credibility in the anti-doping fight, it’s very clear.”

The substance is strictly prohibited, but the WADA code allows for a complete acquittal if the athlete proves there was no fault or negligence of his own. Contador's defense says they have ruled out blood transfusion, contaminated supplements and clen microdosing as scientifically impossible, hence food contamination would be the only explanation left, no matter how improbable by itself. IF (big if) we accept the scientific reports that rule those out, it's only a matter of common sense to acquit Contador.

This isn't as much of a problem with Dine's statements, admittedly, since he suggests they should go after Contador for blood transfusion regardless of the clen, but it's something most people are missing. If they want Contador banned, they HAVE to call out the RFEC on the studies they admitted.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Spotty Latin

You forgot the following clause: Diminumus non curat lex exceptus fastus Spannicus wanta cuttus livres preparus Tour de Francum which states that residual clen from a June blood transfusion contributes to a competitive edge in July and is therefore not trifling in nature.

You are missing the point. The test that led to the clen finding was not in June but on or about July 21. The amount of clen was negligible. It was so negligible some labs do not have the means to detect such a small amount.

It was universally agreed that the amount detected in the test could not have given AC a competitive advantage. The amount was so "de minimus" i.e. so trifling the result should have been "non curat lex." i.e. not worthy of an ajudication of guilt in a legal process.

You must have flunked Latin.

 

[sniper]

The substance is strictly prohibited, but the WADA code allows for a complete acquittal if the athlete proves there was no fault or negligence of his own. Contador's defense says they have ruled out blood transfusion, contaminated supplements and clen microdosing as scientifically impossible, hence food contamination would be the only explanation left, no matter how improbable by itself. IF (big if) we accept the scientific reports that rule those out, it's only a matter of common sense to acquit Contador.

I agree with your big capital-lettered IF.

No fault or negligence of his own, that's what Ovtcharov has shown.
Contador is eons away from having shown just that.
So one mystery is why the RFEC allows for the parallel with Ovtcharov's case to be drawn in the first place, rather than drawing a parallel with the cases of Li Fuyu and the likes.

Most outside of Spain agree that bloodtransfusion is by far the most plausible explanation, also those who've read the RFEC ruling. I'm not sure how any scientific document is gonna prove that he didn't have a bloodtransfusion.
If such a document exists, wouldn't it be circulating already? Or is there only room for anti-AC documentation on the internet?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Missing the point!

So in this case, where Bert’s contaminated meat scenario was very reasonably certain not to be true, what is the justification for clearing him?



Indeed, the law does and must concern itself with trifles. Are you aware of how tiny an amount of DNA can lead to a murder conviction or a paternity suit?

You have missed the point on both scores

1. Although YOU may believe Bert's contamintated meat story not to be true, the Spanish Federation that listened to Bert first hand obviously believed his story to be true. It is the Federation's opinion that counts, not yours. They found his explanation that he unknowingly took a PED to be reasonably certain as truthful.

2. A murder or issue of filiation is not de minimus or trifling. The law does not treat them as trifling. And very small amounts of DNA evidence may prove the delict.

The issue in doping is competitive advantage. Did the amount of clen give AC a competitive advantage? No. The amount was so miniscule, so minute, so ridiculously small it could not possibly have given AC a competitive advantage. This is an accepted fact in AC's case!

So where is the crime?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Strict Liability

In this case, as far as we know, a ban would be most appropriate, he had a substance in his test sample and there was strict liability, it is only right he would be banned.

A doping system that imposes strict liability for an amount of clen that was so ridiculously small that under no circumstance could AC have gained a competitive advantage is patently unfair and unjust. In such a circumstance it would not be right he should be banned.

If you have alcohol on your breath does this mean you are impaired, intoxicated, under the influence, drunk and you should lose your driver's license?

Of course not!

 

[Barrus]

A doping system that imposes strict liability for an amount of clen that was so ridiculously small that under no circumstance could AC have gained a competitive advantage is patently unfair and unjust. In such a circumstance it would not be right he should be banned.


If you have alcohol on your breath does this mean you are impaired, intoxicated, under the influence, drunk and you should lose your driver's license?

Of course not!

To be completely honest, I would like to see strict liability in those cases. But that is not the point, at the moment the rules are completely clear and others have been banned for the same situation, unless the rules are changed through the normal proceedings of adopting new rules, there should be a ban, otherwise strict liability and the WADA system cannot claim any credibility, this is one of the reasons why I hope someone appeals to CAS and either CAS creates a ruling and a precedent for others to use, or, and in my mind better, ensures that Contador gets banned

 

[Anonymous]

To be completely honest, I would like to see strict liability in those cases. But that is not the point, at the moment the rules are completely clear and others have been banned for the same situation, unless the rules are changed through the normal proceedings of adopting new rules, there should be a ban, otherwise strict liability and the WADA system cannot claim any credibility, this is one of the reasons why I hope someone appeals to CAS and either CAS creates a ruling and a precedent for others to use, or, and in my mind better, ensures that Contador gets banned

the reason i was pleased he got off is because i do think the rules need to be changed. i truly believe a threshold needs to be set.

if this isn't appealed and the only thing that comes out of this is that Contador is let off, though, i will really be p*ssed.

 

[hrotha]

I agree with your big capital-lettered IF.

No fault or negligence of his own, that's what Ovtcharov has shown.
Contador is eons away from having shown just that.
So one mystery is why the RFEC allows for the parallel with Ovtcharov's case to be drawn in the first place, rather than drawing a parallel with the cases of Li Fuyu and the likes.

Most outside of Spain agree that bloodtransfusion is by far the most plausible explanation, also those who've read the RFEC ruling. I'm not sure how any scientific document is gonna prove that he didn't have a bloodtransfusion.
If such a document exists, wouldn't it be circulating already? Or is there only room for anti-AC documentation on the internet?

The document exists, unless you believe the RFEC made it up, quotations and all. It's document no. 6, about autotransfusions with clenbuterol-contaminated blood, by Dr. Tomás Martín-Jiménez. UCI is supposed to have the full dossier.

 

[Barrus]

the reason i was pleased he got off is because i do think the rules need to be changed. i truly believe a threshold needs to be set.

if this isn't appealed and the only thing that comes out of this is that Contador is let off, though, i will really be p*ssed.

Yes, I agree the rules might need to be changed, however this needs to be done after careful consideration of all the points and in a general overhaul of any form of strict liability in the WADA system. However the rules as they stand at the moment are quite clear and do propose that almost certainly COntador needs to be banned, unless he can provide proof that he ingested it with no fault of his own

 

[sniper]

The document exists, unless you believe the RFEC made it up, quotations and all. It's document no. 6, about autotransfusions with clenbuterol-contaminated blood, by Dr. Tomás Martín-Jiménez. UCI is supposed to have the full dossier.

You're right of course, in as far as, doubtlessly, a document exists that pretends to clear AC of bloodtransfusion. What I meant is rather that I doubt whether a document exists that really objectively clears AC of bl.transf.
Cuz if the latter existed, AC and his lawyers would have it circulating on the internet by now, don't you think?
I mean, his credibility is at steak (pun intended).

 

[hrotha]

You're right of course, in as far as, doubtlessly, a document exists that pretends to clear AC of bloodtransfusion. What I meant is rather that I doubt whether a document exists that really objectively clears AC of bl.transf.
Cuz if the latter existed, AC and his lawyers would have it circulating on the internet by now, don't you think?
I mean, his credibility is at steak (pun intended).

Oh, most likely. The RFEC quotes the document as saying clen contamination by transfusion was "highly unlikely, as to be safely disregarded from a scientific point of view", or something to that effect, but no one goes on to compare that probability with the chances of getting clen in your steak, which WADA's documents, quoted in the same ruling, described in similar words.

 

[python]

<snip>it looks like no one outside of Spain has bothered to read the RFEC's ruling.

<snip>

isn’t that in our human nature - 99.9 out of a 100 wont bother if it contradicts their opinion. and the one tenth of a human that will bother is a statistical fluke anyways..?

but seriously, as i mentioned before 100 times and will do it again, - in legal arguments unlike in the clinic innuendos or rumours (as plausible as they may seem) need corroboration to be admissible and relevant.

a blood transfusion, at least in my mind, was, is and will always remain a realistic possibility.

but there is not a single official word in any interviews or documents that contador was tested for plasticizers. not one. It remains a speculation first broken by the german article.

now, lets put for a minute on a wada hat.

if contador was indeed tested for plasticizers, why was it not mentioned in any of the 600 pages sent to contador ? (it’s almost a certainty it was NOT mentioned b/c none of the official rebuttals contain the word 'plasticizer')

possibility #1 the test was in a research stage and thus had no legal value
possibility #2- the tests was botched and thus had no legal value
possibility #3 - it was misapplied and the papers got a whiff belonging to another rider
possibility #4 - (remote) there was never a test

putting a contador prosecutor’s hat, I’d go with #1 as the strongest argument..

back to the wada hat.. knowing that the test will almost certainly be validated by the appeal time, why there was still no mention in the 600 official pages? a lawyer can always come up with a non-binding phrase whilst keeping the cards to his chest, like: ’some indirect indications (read- a plasticizer test) point to a non-contamination route (read -blood transfusion)’

no we did not see that. in fact, it’s almost a certainty that contador would be playing with fire when he publicly told wada and the uci that they are free to test any of his samples from the past.

back to the wada hat: ‘thank you very much don contador but we don’t need you permission, we have clear wada rules (and cas precedents) allowing that’

conti hat again..: ‘then go ahead, bugggers, test them and and see you at cas’

... someone asked if contador’s samples are still around ? They almost certainly are because by the code they have to until all appeals are exhausted.

now you know why i always wanted a cas appeal - if contador's bluffing it’s easy enough to call him.

are his lawyers that stupid ?

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I agree the rules might need to be changed, however this needs to be done after careful consideration of all the points and in a general overhaul of any form of strict liability in the WADA system. However the rules as they stand at the moment are quite clear and do propose that almost certainly COntador needs to be banned, unless he can provide proof that he ingested it with no fault of his own

the bolded sentence is one i have a problem with and think is total legal BS.

it says, essentially, if you have enough money to pay for good lawyers, etc. (and donations always welcome), you can buy that proof. a get out of jail free card, if you will.

what about Fuyu Li -- someone much more likely to have actually eaten tainted meat?

i think an overhaul needs to be done now. there is no fairness when certain labs have more sensitive equipment and, possibly, is left up to the discretion of certain individuals if it is mentioned. there needs to be strict liability with a common-sense threshold for items that can conceivably come through every day ingestion, minute though they may be.

if they are not willing to do that now, then yes, Contador should be banned. and for the complete 2 years, not the initial wishy-washy one.

 

[sniper]

now, lets put for a minute on a wada hat.

if contador was indeed tested for plasticizers, why was it not mentioned in any of the 600 pages sent to contador ? (it’s almost a certainty it was NOT mentioned b/c none of the official rebuttals contain the word 'plasticizer')

possibility #1 the test was in a research stage and thus had no legal value
possibility #2- the tests was botched and thus had no legal value
possibility #3 - it was misapplied and the papers got a whiff belonging to another rider
possibility #4 - (remote) there was never a test

putting a contador prosecutor’s hat, I’d go with #1 as the strongest argument..

back to the wada hat.. knowing that the test will almost certainly be validated by the appeal time, why there was still no mention in the 600 official pages? a lawyer can always come up with a non-binding phrase whilst keeping the cards to his chest, like: ’some indirect indications (read- a plasticizer test) point to a non-contamination route (read -blood transfusion)’

no we did not see that. in fact, it’s almost a certainty that contador would be playing with fire when he publicly told wada and the uci that they are free to test any of his samples from the past.

back to the wada hat: ‘thank you very much don contador but we don’t need you permission, we have clear wada rules (and cas precedents) allowing that’

conti hat again..: ‘then go ahead, bugggers, test them and and see you at cas’

... someone asked if contador’s samples are still around ? They almost certainly are because by the code they have to until all appeals are exhausted.

now you know why i always wanted a cas appeal - if contador's bluffing it’s easy enough to call him.

are his lawyers that stupid ?

In bold, I agree that that makes one assume that, perhaps, there never was a positive AC-plasticizer test.

On the other hand, WADA appeared to be pretty sure (stress: appeared to be) that it wasn't food contamination. They must have had indirect indications, for them to quite rigorously exclude the possibility of food contamination.
My bet is also on #1.

RE: his samples still being around: one would certainly hope they are.
But the rumors of corruption in cycling as well as within the other testing bodies doesn't comfort me.

RE: his lawyers being stupid or not:
I'd say, they're not stupid, and will also go to CAS with confidence, even if it's only because they know they can drag AC out of the swamp on technicalities.

 

[python]

On the other hand, WADA appeared to be pretty sure (stress: appeared to be) that it wasn't food contamination. They must have had indirect indications, for them to quite rigorously exclude the possibility of food contamination.

by my reckoning, and you're one witness, i often get it right, wada's technical (as opposed to legal) arguments can only be based on two so far ephemeral arguments - a plasticizer test or inconsistencies in his blood passport. you may recall, very long ago, i hinted that wada/uci delay may have been associated with scrutinizing his blood passport. the key here is - are some profile fluctuations physiological (as the final rfec's paper refers to on the basis of conti's experts) or they point to a possibility of transfusions. the devil is in the details (timing, magnitude)

But the rumors of corruption in cycling as well as within the other testing bodies doesn't comfort me.

i agree but dont forget that the samples are physically in deutschland and not in pat's refrigerator.

 

[Andynonomous]

Plasticizer or no ?

I think people are being quite naive here with respect the the existance of a plasticizer test.

Imagine that you are a clean rider that has a false rumour that has been reported that you have tested positive for plasticizers (more than "background contamination" would allow for - as is the "rumour" with Contador).

What would your reaction be ?
1) Ignore it because the test is "unofficial" ?
2) Scream from the rooftops that it isn't true (ie. there was no such test, or if there was that it was innaccurate).

Remember, your reputation as a clean rider is at stake here. This "rumour" has been widely reported in international media, and it has not (to my knowledge) been denied by Contador, the UCI, WADA, or the RFEC.

It is clear to me that Contador failed a plasticizer test, and everyone within the quasi-legal "process" is ignoring it because it is "unofficial" (prejudicial).

 

[sniper]

I think people are being quite naive here with respect the the existance of a plasticizer test.

Imagine that you are a clean rider that has a false rumour that has been reported that you have tested positive for plasticizers (more than "background contamination" would allow for - as is the "rumour" with Contador).

What would your reaction be ?
1) Ignore it because the test is "unofficial" ?
2) Scream from the rooftops that it isn't true (ie. there was no such test, or if there was that it was innaccurate).

Remember, your reputation as a clean rider is at stake here.

It is clear to me that Contador failed a plasticizer test, and everyone within the quasi-legal "process" is ignoring it because it is "unofficial" (prejudicial).

Though I digg what you'Re saying, note that (as discussed previously somewhere), if he would shout from the frikkin EiffelTower that the PLAsticizer test is a false rumor, he would merely be giving a voice to that rumor.
So regardless of whether there was a positive plasticizer test, it may not have been in his benefit to speak about it in the first place.

(p.s. I do think there was a positive plas-test, cuz when such rumors are spread, they are normally true. Compare e.g. the rumors about Armstrong which are now all turning out to be true.)

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think people are being quite naive here with respect the the existance of a plasticizer test.

Imagine that you are a clean rider that has a false rumour that has been reported that you have tested positive for plasticizers (more than "background contamination" would allow for - as is the "rumour" with Contador).

What would your reaction be ?
1) Ignore it because the test is "unofficial" ?
2) Scream from the rooftops that it isn't true (ie. there was no such test, or if there was that it was innaccurate).

Remember, your reputation as a clean rider is at stake here. This "rumour" has been widely reported in international media, and it has not (to my knowledge) been denied by Contador, the UCI, WADA, or the RFEC.

It is clear to me that Contador failed a plasticizer test, and everyone within the quasi-legal "process" is ignoring it because it is "unofficial" (prejudicial).

You left off option #3 Hire Emile Vrijman to write you a get out of jail free card.

 

[pedaling squares]

You are missing the point. The test that led to the clen finding was not in June but on or about July 21. The amount of clen was negligible. It was so negligible some labs do not have the means to detect such a small amount.

It was universally agreed that the amount detected in the test could not have given AC a competitive advantage. The amount was so "de minimus" i.e. so trifling the result should have been "non curat lex." i.e. not worthy of an ajudication of guilt in a legal process.

You must have flunked Latin.

That hurts, I liked my Latin. My point was that clen is a banned substance, not a substance banned in certain quantities. The point of when the clen was ingested is important only in assessing the validity of Bertie's story. Which is important as the onus was on him to prove innocence. Nobody assumes it was taken in July for performance enhancement. The most reasonable explanation is that it was residual clen obtained via a blood transfusion, which in my humble opinion carries more weight than the missing miracle beef theory.

You have missed the point on both scores

1. Although YOU may believe Bert's contamintated meat story not to be true, the Spanish Federation that listened to Bert first hand obviously believed his story to be true. It is the Federation's opinion that counts, not yours. They found his explanation that he unknowingly took a PED to be reasonably certain as truthful.

2. A murder or issue of filiation is not de minimus or trifling. The law does not treat them as trifling. And very small amounts of DNA evidence may prove the delict.

The issue in doping is competitive advantage. Did the amount of clen give AC a competitive advantage? No. The amount was so miniscule, so minute, so ridiculously small it could not possibly have given AC a competitive advantage. This is an accepted fact in AC's case!

So where is the crime?

The crime = it is a banned substance and it is in his system. Your reference to murder is out of whack - courts that exist only to hear PED cases will not consider this trifling. It's not like they have two murder trials and a $30 million fraud trial waiting for this case to be settled. A PED case involving the top cyclist in the world is not trifling, no matter the quantity of the substance. To the bold - hahaha, that was good.

A doping system that imposes strict liability for an amount of clen that was so ridiculously small that under no circumstance could AC have gained a competitive advantage is patently unfair and unjust. In such a circumstance it would not be right he should be banned.

If you have alcohol on your breath does this mean you are impaired, intoxicated, under the influence, drunk and you should lose your driver's license?

Of course not!

Rob, alcohol is not a banned substance in certain quantities, not even when driving. Apples and oranges.

 

[sniper]

for those who read german (or know how to translate it on the web):
A nice interview with Hajo Seppelt on the Contador case:

http://www.sportschau.de/sp/radsport/news201102/16/interview_seppelt.jsp

Among other things, he claims the level of CLEN found in AC's body w/should have been (alot) higher, if it had really entered AC's body via contaminated meat.

He wonders how they've managed to play down the plasticizer argument.

He says it's bizarre that the case is being compared with Ovtcharov's.

He slams the involvement of Spanish politicians and others who basically have nothing to do with the case, and says he hasn't seen anything like that in any other country.
AC's acquittal is all the more bizarre, given that he was linked to OP.
The way OP has been "handled" in Spain, according to Seppelt, is unique in the history of doping.

His prediction: UCI won't appeal (judging from Carpani's involvement and statements), WADA probably.

Calls for independent testing bodies.

Here is Hajo Seppelt's profile. Judge for yourself if you find him biassed or not:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajo_Seppelt

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

isn’t that in our human nature - 99.9 out of a 100 wont bother if it contradicts their opinion. and the one tenth of a human that will bother is a statistical fluke anyways..?

but seriously, as i mentioned before 100 times and will do it again, - in legal arguments unlike in the clinic innuendos or rumours (as plausible as they may seem) need corroboration to be admissible and relevant.

a blood transfusion, at least in my mind, was, is and will always remain a realistic possibility.

but there is not a single official word in any interviews or documents that contador was tested for plasticizers. not one. It remains a speculation first broken by the german article.

now, lets put for a minute on a wada hat.

if contador was indeed tested for plasticizers, why was it not mentioned in any of the 600 pages sent to contador ? (it’s almost a certainty it was NOT mentioned b/c none of the official rebuttals contain the word 'plasticizer')

possibility #1 the test was in a research stage and thus had no legal value
possibility #2- the tests was botched and thus had no legal value
possibility #3 - it was misapplied and the papers got a whiff belonging to another rider
possibility #4 - (remote) there was never a test

putting a contador prosecutor’s hat, I’d go with #1 as the strongest argument..

back to the wada hat.. knowing that the test will almost certainly be validated by the appeal time, why there was still no mention in the 600 official pages? a lawyer can always come up with a non-binding phrase whilst keeping the cards to his chest, like: ’some indirect indications (read- a plasticizer test) point to a non-contamination route (read -blood transfusion)’

no we did not see that. in fact, it’s almost a certainty that contador would be playing with fire when he publicly told wada and the uci that they are free to test any of his samples from the past.

back to the wada hat: ‘thank you very much don contador but we don’t need you permission, we have clear wada rules (and cas precedents) allowing that’

conti hat again..: ‘then go ahead, bugggers, test them and and see you at cas’

... someone asked if contador’s samples are still around ? They almost certainly are because by the code they have to until all appeals are exhausted.

now you know why i always wanted a cas appeal - if contador's bluffing it’s easy enough to call him.

are his lawyers that stupid ?

I like the idea of a 'possibility 1.a'. That being that if the legal team knew about adverse DEHP levels, but also knew that they'd be fighting a time-line as to the validation of the test, why would they even entertain the idea of bringing that to everyone's attention?

If there are adverse levels of DEHP, the fact that that evidence may not be useful (or admissable), would say to me that NO ONE on the inside would want that brought up. Keep it silent. Deal with it when/if you have to. Take the down-time to figure out arguments contra DEHP being evidentiary to transfusion (vaccuum packed meat?).

They seem to have been able to take a tack that is getting the results they want (even if they may be unbelievable to many), why not keep the strategy up? It's apparently working...

 

[Escarabajo]

for those who read german (or know how to translate it on the web):
A nice interview with Hajo Seppelt on the Contador case:

http://www.sportschau.de/sp/radsport/news201102/16/interview_seppelt.jsp

Among other things, he claims the level of CLEN found in AC's body w/should have been (alot) higher, if it had really entered AC's body via contaminated meat.

He wonders how they've managed to play down the plasticizer argument.

He says it's bizarre that the case is being compared with Ovtcharov's.

He slams the involvement of Spanish politicians and others who basically have nothing to do with the case, and says he hasn't seen anything like that in any other country.
AC's acquittal is all the more bizarre, given that he was linked to OP.
The way OP has been "handled" in Spain, according to Seppelt, is unique in the history of doping.

His prediction: UCI won't appeal (judging from Carpani's involvement and statements), WADA probably.

Calls for independent testing bodies.

Here is Hajo Seppelt's profile. Judge for yourself if you find him biassed or not:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajo_Seppelt

My German is not good today, but thanks for the translation.

 

[Mister Crud]

Does anybody imagine AC risked being anything but totally clean in the Algarve this weekend?
Classy riding for his first race back, whatever he did in the past.