Contador acquitted

[Merckx index]

fran contador on his brother’s defence
http://translate.google.com/transla....com/ciclismo.html&sl=es&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

- hints that the scientific basis for the acquittal was based on the fortunate fact of contador being tested multiple times before and after the positive.

IOW, rehashes the point that Bert did not take CB during the Tour. This evidence, as we have been over ad nauseum, does not address the possibility of a transfusion. Thus Fran's interview provides no support for speculation here that there may have been additional scientific evidence that the public was not privy to. I would think if there were such evidence, Fran would at least have hinted at it.

- does not say it directly but makes it pretty clear that contador did NOT need a hair test.

But gives no rationalization for this view. As we have discussed here, there is a good chance that a hair test would neither help nor hurt his case, scientifically, but from a PR point of view a negative test could only help.

The article estimates that Bert has spent 30,000 euros so far on his defense. One of the most interesting remarks Fran makes is that he acknowledges that other riders, with less resources, could not have afforded Bert's defense. And if CAS and/or WADA appeals, it could be a lot more. It's still far less than what Floyd spent.

Question of the Day: Assuming Bert really did transfuse, would he tell Fran?

 

[flicker]

fran contador on his brother’s defence
http://translate.google.com/transla....com/ciclismo.html&sl=es&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

ignoring a lot of brotherly passion, the following factual bits got my attention....

- a snide at astana (‘they have their own version of the facts and act accordingly’)
(this confirms my doubts that astana would cooperate in forging that meat receipt many consider a given)
- hints that the scientific basis for the acquittal was based on the fortunate fact of contador being tested multiple times before and after the positive.
- does not say it directly but makes it pretty clear that contador did NOT need a hair test.
- declared readiness to go to any court if not acquitted by cas

Fran sounds like he is full of bull meat, sad.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Raison D'Etre

I fail to see how stating the obvious has anything to do with the points I was making. Again, you said that if someone can reasonably show that he ingested a substance accidentally, he should be cleared. Again, I made the point that the most reasonable conclusion is that Bert transfused. The fact that the REFC has decided to clear Bert anyway does not prove your assertion or implication that Bert proved that he reasonably ingested through accident.

Again you are missing the point. The REFC cleared Bert under Article 296 of the UCI Cycling Regs. That article permits them to clear Bert where,

"If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears no Fault or or Negligence the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated."

Now the only way for Bert to "establish" that his clen reading was not present through any fault or negligence on his part was to give to the REFC an explanation as to how the clen got into his system. That explanation obviously was that it was present through the ingestion of tainted meat which Bert did not know was tainted. The REFC accepted that explanation. And implicit in that acceptance is the acceptance the explanation was true.

Therefore while Bert was otherwise subject to a one year suspension on the argument he had a PED in his system and on the basis of strict liability in spite of the miniscule amount, he should be suspended, clearly he was believed to a sufficient standard that he establised he bore no fault or negligence.

This is the only issue in his acquittal which is what this thread is all about. This thread is not about speculation he otherwise doped by blood transfusion. That suggestion is just sheer irrelevant speculation.



If you have been following this forum at all, you will know that the tiny amount of CB could very well be indicative of blood transfusion. No evidence presented by Bert’s team suggests otherwise, and the reported DEHP levels are rather significant evidence in favor of that scenario.

In order to invoke Article 296 there was no onus on Bert to refute every possible speculative scenario as to how the clen might have got into his system. All article 296 requires is for Bert to establish it was there through no fault or negligence of his own. Clearly this is what he did to the satisfaction of the REFC.



Also, you seem unaware of the fact that the anti-doping rules do NOT say that the substance has to be present at levels for a competitive advantage. It’s not possible to set up the rules in this way. An elementary knowledge of pharmacokinetics indicates that a rider can take a competitive dose but test for at a later time for a much smaller dose. In Bert’s case, we are pretty sure this is not the case, because he tested negative on a day before he tested postiive, but that is a different issue.

The situation is more complex than simply, "if it's too low to be PE, it shouldn't be sanctioned". Unless one knows when the athlete ingested the substance, the level detected tells us nothing about how much the athlete originally ingested. It is balancing that fact against the possibility of very low levels through accidental ingestion that's the problem.

I recognize that the rules do not say that the presence of the PED has to prove a competitive advantage. But perhaps they should, because that is what doping is all about. What is the point of doping if it does not give the rider a competitive advantage. What is the point of testing for PEDs ("Performance enhancing drugs") if the drugs do not performance enhance or give a competitive advantage.

This is why minimum levels of a drug should be established before a suspension sanction is imposed. In Bert's case the amount of clen was so ridiculously low there is no way it was even close to "performance enhancing"

On that basis alone, Bert should have been acquitted.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Is strict Liability fair?

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[/QUOTE


Barrus here is the problem. There are many reasons a person might have a PED in their system through No Fault or Negligence of their own. It is for that very reason the UCI enacted Article 296.

Now the issue that arises from Article 296 is whether or not the Rider "establishes" there was no fault or negligence. This is an issue of credibility. In this case the REFC made what is essentially a credibility finding in Bert's favour.

There are therefore two reasons why the CAS should **** out, at least in this case.

1. It is not possible for them to say that the REFC should not have accepted Bert's explanation, unless there is some other compelling evidence to suggest the clen got there other than for the reason Bert said it did. So far I have not seen such compelling evidence, other than the speculation in CN threads.

2. The REFC was simply applying an UCI regulation. They are entitled to rely on Article 296. They did so because they felt AC had "established" no fault or negligence. What is the point of having 296 if the CAS is simply going to say the REFC should not have believed AC and on the basis of strict liability he deserves two years.

I accept that a system of strict liability might be the best system for cleaning up the sport, but is it fair in all cases?

Another system might be one of absolute liablity where a positive finding prima facie implies guilt unless the rider can show he used due diligence to avoid ingesting a PED (another way of invoking a Article 296 kind of argument)

 

[Benotti69]

Barrus here is the problem. There are many reasons a person might have a PED in their system through No Fault or Negligence of their own. It is for that very reason the UCI enacted Article 296.

Now the issue that arises from Article 296 is whether or not the Rider "establishes" there was no fault or negligence. This is an issue of credibility. In this case the REFC made what is essentially a credibility finding in Bert's favour.

There are therefore two reasons why the CAS should **** out, at least in this case.

1. It is not possible for them to say that the REFC should not have accepted Bert's explanation, unless there is some other compelling evidence to suggest the clen got there other than for the reason Bert said it did. So far I have not seen such compelling evidence, other than the speculation in CN threads.

2. The REFC was simply applying an UCI regulation. They are entitled to rely on Article 296. They did so because they felt AC had "established" no fault or negligence. What is the point of having 296 if the CAS is simply going to say the REFC should not have believed AC and on the basis of strict liability he deserves two years.

I accept that a system of strict liability might be the best system for cleaning up the sport, but is it fair in all cases?

Another system might be one of absolute liablity where a positive finding prima facie implies guilt unless the rider can show he used due diligence to avoid ingesting a PED (another way of invoking a Article 296 kind of argument)

Can you give some solid examples?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Can you give some solid examples?

Sylken Lauman, Canadian rower, 1995 Pan Am Games

 

[Benotti69]

Sylken Lauman, Canadian rower, 1995 Pan Am Games

1 is that all, and another the famous not my fault "i took the wrong medicine". Who lately do we know did that? Tyler hamilton. You would think that athletes would be extremely careful with every single item they put in their bodies due to the efforts they make to train and compete. When this happens you got to question whether the person is telling the truth.I do think they are extremely careful and when caught they are caught for a reason unless they can prove different. At least Hamilton held his hands up, took his ban and took the full responsibility of what he did.

Sport if full of weak excuses that they ate, drank, kissed, had too much sex, toothpaste, cocaine sweets and other BS to try and cover their doping. To argue anything else is burying your head.

To say that Contador's Clen was too small to 'Performance Enhance' is beside the point unless he can prove how it got into his system. He can't, because? Oooops he ate the evidence and no one else did who got tested, shame. Ok Bertie off ya go and please be careful in future. Li Fuyu had a better case (being Chinese and having been in China eating their dodgy food) than Berie but still got banned for 2 years. But we all connected the dots back to Radiosuck and Bruyneel so no major outcry there!

 

[frenchfry]

I recognize that the rules do not say that the presence of the PED has to prove a competitive advantage. But perhaps they should, because that is what doping is all about. What is the point of doping if it does not give the rider a competitive advantage. What is the point of testing for PEDs ("Performance enhancing drugs") if the drugs do not performance enhance or give a competitive advantage.

This is why minimum levels of a drug should be established before a suspension sanction is imposed. In Bert's case the amount of clen was so ridiculously low there is no way it was even close to "performance enhancing"

On that basis alone, Bert should have been acquitted.

On the other hand, his excuse that he had asked someone who wasn't even part of his entourage to pick up Spanish meat and deliver it to him in the middle of a 3 week stage race held in a country that is reknowned for the quality of it's food and that the meat just happened to be contaminated with a drug well known to be used as part of comprehensive doping programs and just by chance the only other rider on his team that was also tested was the only one who didn't share that meat is really hard to believe.

 

[python]

<snip> hard to believe.

i agree with you, his story is not easy to believe..

but before a logical sequence leading to a belief is invoked one needs to get the connecting dots (a popular phrase lately ) less fuzzy.

the request for spanish meat according to the cook (paco) came from the cook (paco) who phoned his bud he expected to arrive.

second, even wada dont seem to question the authenticity of the meat receipt b/c they sent an inspector to the butcher shop were the meat was allegedly bought (also evident from the 14 february rfec verdict)

if the meat purchase is a completely fabricated story, as i posted several times, it's easy to knock it down and completely destroy any credibility contador has left.

 

[frenchfry]

i agree with you, his story is not easy to believe..

but before a logical sequence leading to a belief is invoked one needs to get the connecting dots (a popular phrase lately ) less fuzzy.

the request for spanish meat according to the cook (paco) came from the cook (paco) who phoned his bud he expected to arrive.

second, even wada dont seem to question the authenticity of the meat receipt b/c they sent an inspector to the butcher shop were the meat was allegedly bought (also evident from the 14 february rfec verdict)

if the meat purchase is a completely fabricated story, as i posted several times, it's easy to knock it down and completely destroy any credibility contador has left.

I guess I should have added that even though I personally don't believe his story, it may be true. The problem is that even if an outlandish story is true, we are so cycical due to all the outlandish lies that have been told before. Therefore those who are truthful are penalised by the liars.

The easy solution (highly recommended by Verdruggen, in order to keep the statistics in line) would be to believe everyone. WADA has decided not to take the easy path.

 

[GJB123]

1 is that all, and another the famous not my fault "i took the wrong medicine". Who lately do we know did that? Tyler hamilton. You would think that athletes would be extremely careful with every single item they put in their bodies due to the efforts they make to train and compete. When this happens you got to question whether the person is telling the truth.I do think they are extremely careful and when caught they are caught for a reason unless they can prove different. At least Hamilton held his hands up, took his ban and took the full responsibility of what he did.

Sport if full of weak excuses that they ate, drank, kissed, had too much sex, toothpaste, cocaine sweets and other BS to try and cover their doping. To argue anything else is burying your head.

To say that Contador's Clen was too small to 'Performance Enhance' is beside the point unless he can prove how it got into his system. He can't, because? Oooops he ate the evidence and no one else did who got tested, shame. Ok Bertie off ya go and please be careful in future. Li Fuyu had a better case (being Chinese and having been in China eating their dodgy food) than Berie but still got banned for 2 years. But we all connected the dots back to Radiosuck and Bruyneel so no major outcry there!

What exactly is your beef (pun inutended) with the Contador acquittal?

You keep bringing up Li FuYu as to show how a great injustice has been done by acquitting Contador. Shouldn't you rather be angry at the injustice being done to Li? In my book he should also have been acquitted (and is probably more entitled to being acquitted).

And Li not being acquitted is Contador's fault how? Should Contador really in any way not plea his own case because of the injustice done to Li out of some sort of bad conscience kicking in? Surely you must be jesting. In a certain way he is helping Li more than anybody else by pleading and winning his case.

And where is you moral outrage at Ovtcharov having been acquitted (even without an appeal to CAS)?

Regards
GJ

 

[fcojavier]

- declared readiness to go to any court if not acquitted by cas

IMO this is important and perharps related to Zapatero support before RFEC definitive ruling.
I saw Zapatero´s support as remembering that Spanish (or European) law would not back up a ban based on stricty liability.

 

[Benotti69]

What exactly is your beef (pun inutended) with the Contador acquittal?

You keep bringing up Li FuYu as to show how a great injustice has been done by acquitting Contador. Shouldn't you rather be angry at the injustice being done to Li? In my book he should also have been acquitted (and is probably more entitled to being acquitted).

And Li not being acquitted is Contador's fault how? Should Contador really in any way not plea his own case because of the injustice done to Li out of some sort of bad conscience kicking in? Surely you must be jesting. In a certain way he is helping Li more than anybody else by pleading and winning his case.

And where is you moral outrage at Ovtcharov having been acquitted (even without an appeal to CAS)?

Regards
GJ

I never accused Contador for Li not being acquitted! Where did you get that from?

What injustice was done to Li? He tested positive for a banned substance? Those are the rules. If he can prove that it got there by other means, please do but that was a year ago and nothing has been heard. Radiosuck has hardly been working hard to prove his innocence, i wonder why?

Each case is separate, but the 2 are similar in that they both were caught for the same substance that is known to be used for doping. Li gets an automatic 2 year ban the other gets off. One had a stronger case for how it MAY have got into their system, the other said it was meat that no longer exists as it was consumed by Bertie and it is a product that is banned in EU for use in beef cattle and is tested regurlarly for, but not in China.

Contador in my opinion is guilty. He tested positive for a substance with no thresh hold. If he could prove it got there from the meat, great, innocent. But he hasn't. Do i believe the Spanish Federation? No, they refused to sanction Valverde when the evidence was there. It was the Italians who did it.

 

[sniper]

Good news, if you ask me:

http://es.eurosport.yahoo.com/22022011/47/ama-permitira-umbral-clembuterol.html

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I never accused Contador for Li not being acquitted! Where did you get that from?

What injustice was done to Li? He tested positive for a banned substance? Those are the rules. If he can prove that it got there by other means, please do but that was a year ago and nothing has been heard. Radiosuck has hardly been working hard to prove his innocence, i wonder why?

Each case is separate, but the 2 are similar in that they both were caught for the same substance that is known to be used for doping. Li gets an automatic 2 year ban the other gets off. One had a stronger case for how it MAY have got into their system, the other said it was meat that no longer exists as it was consumed by Bertie and it is a product that is banned in EU for use in beef cattle and is tested regurlarly for, but not in China.

Contador in my opinion is guilty. He tested positive for a substance with no thresh hold. If he could prove it got there from the meat, great, innocent. But he hasn't. Do i believe the Spanish Federation? No, they refused to sanction Valverde when the evidence was there. It was the Italians who did it.

Why is it that people keep saying that "Contador needs to prove it got there from the meat?" It's virtually impossible to prove that. You're putting riders in a no win situation because WADA wanted an easy way out by setting a zero threshold. It's a stupid rule that allows a rider virtually no ability to challenge it. We know the food supply is contaminated. We know riders can't prove a substance came from the food. But, they still get banned anyway? Makes zero sense.

I know it's easier for the bean counters at WADA or the UCI, but you're putting people's careers on the line here. It's not EPO we're taking about, it's something that has been found in the food supply.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

Why is it that people keep saying that "Contador needs to prove it got there from the meat?" It's virtually impossible to prove that. You're putting riders in a no win situation because WADA wanted an easy way out by setting a zero threshold. It's a stupid rule that allows a rider virtually no ability to challenge it. We know the food supply is contaminated. We know riders can't prove a substance came from the food. But, they still get banned anyway? Makes zero sense.

I know it's easier for the bean counters at WADA or the UCI, but you're putting people's careers on the line here. It's not EPO we're taking about, it's something that has been found in the food supply.

do YOUthink he got the Clen from the meat?

 

[hrotha]

do YOUthink he got the Clen from the meat?

Do you think it's possible for a random clean rider to test positive for clen due to his eating contaminated meat?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

do YOUthink he got the Clen from the meat?

What does that matter? You can't convict someone based on what one internet poster thinks.

 

[Andynonomous]

What does that matter? You can't convict someone based on what one internet poster thinks.

Just as I have said before, the defenders don't care what the truth is (they hide behind legalities, and technicalities), and the accusers do. In other words, both sides KNOW HE IS A DOPER ! Only one side cares that he is.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Just as I have said before, the defenders don't care what the truth is (they hide behind legalities, and technicalities), and the accusers do. In other words, both sides KNOW HE IS A DOPER ! Only one side cares that he is.

I don't think I can reach low enough to post on your level.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

Do you think it's possible for a random clean rider to test positive for clen due to his eating contaminated meat?

absolutely NOT

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

Yeah, I hide behind the law. Is it too much to ask you to think on a 4th grade level?

still bugging you that he's NOT in jail yet?

guess so.......................

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Do you think it's possible for a random clean rider to test positive for clen due to his eating contaminated meat?

No ..................... BANG BANG

 

[Anonymous]

Do you think it's possible for a random clean rider to test positive for clen due to his eating contaminated meat?

possible? yes. likely? no.

but if the slightest possibility exists, a threshold needs to be set (for all the reasons Moose put forth).

 

[Andynonomous]

possible? yes. likely? no.

but if the slightest possibility exists, a threshold needs to be set (for all the reasons Moose put forth).

Ya, so if he extracts blood when doping, then transfuses it back in (diluting the PED), he can get off scott free.

Legitimate argument.