Contador acquitted

[happychappy]

 

[Andynonomous]

You can't argue against anything I have said, so you just get abusive.

Where are the mods ?

 

[sniper]

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

Legitimate argument.

+1

AC's case teaches us one thing: why there shouldn't be a threshhold.

If someone is really unguilty, there are plenty of ways of showing that.

Greetings, Ovtcharov.

 

[Anonymous]

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

Legitimate argument.

+1

AC's case teaches us one thing: why there shouldn't be a threshhold.

If someone is really unguilty, there are plenty of ways of showing that.

Greetings, Ovtcharov.

ah, yes. you two are obviously those who believe in innocent until proven guilty, huh?

i am not saying i don't think AC dopes. i'm sure he does, as well as a majority of the top riders out there... but i do believe there needs to be a threshold for Clen since it is possible to get it through contaminated meat. that there wasn't a threshold was sheer laziness! that looking into getting one now, after all this publicity, is practically a crime.

you want to catch the guys transfusing their own blood? refine the plasticizer test. then you won't even have to worry about trying to find trace amounts of diluted PEDs.

 

[roundabout]

^^^ This is all a sidetrack from the real issue of possible blood doping^^^

 

[Andynonomous]

ah, yes. you two are obviously those who believe in innocent until proven guilty, huh?

The old "innocent until proven guilty" argument huh.

Problem is, Contador tested positive. He doesn't deny he had a ped in his system.

It's much like someone being caught holding a smoking gun at a murder scene. You had better come up with a VERY plausible scenario for your innocence, or a jury is going to convict. Contador has not done so.

 

[Andynonomous]

^^^ This is all a sidetrack from the real issue of possible blood doping^^^

So, using a "training ped" like clen is ok ?

 

[sniper]

ah, yes. you two are obviously those who believe in innocent until proven guilty, huh?

i am not saying i don't think AC dopes. i'm sure he does, as well as a majority of the top riders out there... but i do believe there needs to be a threshold for Clen since it is possible to get it through contaminated meat. that there wasn't a threshold was sheer laziness! that looking into getting one now, after all this publicity, is practically a crime.

you want to catch the guys transfusing their own blood? refine the plasticizer test. then you won't even have to worry about trying to find trace amounts of diluted PEDs.

In the last two decades of procycling, has there been one case that justifies the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"?

As far as I can remember, whenever there was smoke, there was fire. Give me one counterexample.

 

[hrotha]

ah, yes. you two are obviously those who believe in innocent until proven guilty, huh?

i am not saying i don't think AC dopes. i'm sure he does, as well as a majority of the top riders out there... but i do believe there needs to be a threshold for Clen since it is possible to get it through contaminated meat. that there wasn't a threshold was sheer laziness! that looking into getting one now, after all this publicity, is practically a crime.

you want to catch the guys transfusing their own blood? refine the plasticizer test. then you won't even have to worry about trying to find trace amounts of diluted PEDs.

How high would you have the threshold be? Because technically anything under poisonous levels is possible through food contamination (and above too, of course, but then the rider would notice).

 

[Benotti69]

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.

The idea that Contador was not doping is crazy. Of course he needs to prove it, it is in the rules, if he didn't need to prove it they could all say they ate some containing said substance as soon as they test positive. Clen is widespread amongst cyclists.

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.

Putting whose career on the line? Multi millionaire Contador?

As i said earlier, riders need to take full responsibility for what goes in their bodies and if they test positive for something well they have to bite the bullet.

No one got upset about Li Fuyu on here or in the wider world. Is that because he is a no one, or he rode for Bruyneel (so did Contador) or that he's Chinese?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Cynicism

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!

Silken Laumen was the first athlete that came quickly to my mind. I did not nor do I have the time to research all the various cases, but they are out there. I would believe Silken Laumen to my grave. She is integrity personified.

I think the problem is you are just too cynical. You are correct that there are a lot of BS excuses, but I think your view of human nature is jaundiced. I played sport at a high competitive level and your mind is primarily fixed on your training and the event and not what you took for that nagging cold, that you simply want to get rid of. I have more faith in human nature than you.

To say the issue of performance enhancement is "beside the point" is wrong. Performance enhancement is the whole point. Banned substances list exist so an athlete cannot enhance their performance by using PEDs. But in this case the amount was so miniscule it could not have enhanced performance, stop, end of story. So what is the point of punishing AC or even having a hearing?

The system really needs to punish those who intentionally toke a PED to enchance performance for a competitive advantage. In many if not most cases an inference can be drawn by the test results that that is what an athlete did. But not in Bert's case.

AC proved to the satisfaction of the REFC that he ingested the clen through no fault or negligence on his part. Therefore the REFC was entitled to rely on Article 296 and they did. The UCI passed 296 just for this kind of case. You may not like it but that is the issue.

To appeal this case would be wrong, because the CAS would have to say to the REFC you were wrong in believing AC, and 296 is irrelevant, when it is not. All the REFC did was to rely on the UCI's own regulations and apply them.

 

[webvan]

He didn't prove anyhing he just gave them a way out. Obviously he couldn't have the meat he ate in July tested in September, but not finding any Clen in meat from that butcher or even apparently bothering to do any testing speaks volumes not to mention the extremely rare occurrence of Clen in Spain...read what Zirbel had to say about it. Maybe the levels were low but with the transfusion theory they would have been higher when he took it in the first place to improve his training abilities. If the UCI doesn't appeal, WADA will and that will be the end of Contador like it was the end of Landis, well deserved as he is not only a cheater but also a liar who insulted everyone's intelligence with that pathetic excuse.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Clenbuterol Threshold

How high would you have the threshold be? Because technically anything under poisonous levels is possible through food contamination (and above too, of course, but then the rider would notice).

Albertos positive test has to be put in it's proper context. It measured 50 picograms of clen. That is 50 trillioneths of a gram. This is so ridculously small that there should not have even had to be an investigation. Under no conceivable circumstance could this amount enhance performance or given Alberto a competitive edge.

All those who speculate that it was the residue of an earlier blood transfusion are barking up the wrong tree. There is NO evidence AC did this. Certainly this minscule trace amount does not do it.

I am sure there is some level at which it could be said by inference that the amount was consistent with it being taken to enhance performance. Clearly it has to be substantially higher than 50 picograms. This is for the pharmacologists in the forum.

The waste of time and money the Contador investigation took for 50 picograms defies all reasonable logic. The effect the specultion has had on his reputation is scandalous.

 

[Merckx index]

Patrick, as I said before, your posts just reek of argument from authority:

AC proved to the satisfaction of the REFC that he ingested the clen through no fault or negligence on his part.

Have you never, ever, even once heard an organization, or some authority figure--such as the President, the Congress, some court, whatever--issue a decision that you did not automatically agree with? Do you never say to yourself, rather than simply accepting what someone says, I will look at the facts as I know them and come to my own decision?

The only thing Contador has established to a reasonable degree of certainty is that he really did eat meat on the day he claimed to--though even that claim depends on believing a lot of people who might be persuaded to lie on his behalf.

Has he established that the meat contained CB? No.
Has he established that the meat came from a ranch where CB is likely to be a problem? No.
Has he at least established that CB contamination of meat in general is likely to be a problem? No.

ALL he has done is wave his hands and say, it must be contamination because there is no other possibility.

All those who speculate that it was the residue of an earlier blood transfusion are barking up the wrong tree. There is NO evidence AC did this. Certainly this minscule trace amount does not do it.

In the first place, the governing body does not have to prove where the drug came from. Maybe Floyd took T directly, or maybe he got it from transfused blood, that was never established, and it never had to be. Maybe, as Bert is claiming, Floyd’s CIR positive was an accident, resulting from a diet that skewed the carbon isotope ratios in his body. That possibility, remote as it seems, may very well be just as credible as Bert’s one in a million ingestion of CB-tainted meat. But Floyd was never able to prove that. He couldn’t just wave his hands and say, that must be how I tested positive.

In the second place, we do have the DEHP test, until someone comes forward and definitively proves that the reported values are bogus. This IS evidence. If that result is real--and again, no one has come forward to deny it--it is about as strong as the evidence from the HBT test that was used to nail Tyler. It is probably stronger evidence than the altered passport values that have been used to take several athletes out of competition. There are other explanations for altered hematological parameters. There really don’t seem to be credible alternatives for very high DEHP values in the urine. Possibly a false positive, but not very likely.

Albertos positive test has to be put in it's proper context. It measured 50 picograms of clen. That is 50 trillioneths of a gram. This is so ridculously small that there should not have even had to be an investigation. Under no conceivable circumstance could this amount enhance performance or given Alberto a competitive edge.

You continue to ignore the most basic lessons of pharmacokinetics. The amount of drug detected in a urine sample bears NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the amount taken IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWING WHEN IT WAS TAKEN, BY WHAT ROUTE, AND THE KINETICS OF THE DRUG ITSELF. That value, taken in isolation, is meaningless. Any pharmacologist (and I am one, btw) will tell you that.

You and others do have a point that if CB can be ingested accidentally, then at some point it might be helpful to set a threshold level. But there is nothing magic about such a level. It has to be balanced against the fact that any level can be indicative of doping--that if a rider does not exceed the threshold, it does NOT mean he didn’t dope. The peloton is loaded with riders who have never been busted for either testosterone or EPO, though tests for both have, in effect, threshold levels that everyone in the anti-doping field knows let off many, many guilty riders. It’s probably safe to say that for every innocent rider who is prevented from being wrongly sanctioned, the same threshold that protects him lets at least ten guilty riders get off. If I were being cheated out of prize money and advancement opportunities by this situation, I’d be a little irked by it.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Logic

Patrick, as I said before, your posts just reek of argument from authority:



Have you never, ever, even once heard an organization, or some authority figure--such as the President, the Congress, some court, whatever--issue a decision that you did not automatically agree with? Do you never say to yourself, rather than simply accepting what someone says, I will look at the facts as I know them and come to my own decision?



As a criminal defence lawyer for 35 years I have constantly through out my career questioned and disagreed with decisions of the courts, authority figures, the establishment and my government (which is not American therefore the pronouncements of the President or the Congress have relevance to me) etc. Those who know me would not call me a yes man.

But that does not mean I can ignore such decisions or pronouncements. That is called accepting reality. Many decisions of the courts I disagree with, such as for example the Supreme Court of Canada are binding. And even though I disagree with them I cannot put my head in the sand and ignore them as if they do not exist or do not apply to my cases. I have to be realistic.

I have tried to present an argument in this thread based on logic and reason that there is no case against Alberto. That there should never have been an investigation based on the ridiclously low amount of clen (the legal principle of "diminmus non curat lex") and that his explanation whether you like it or not was accepted by REFC and should not be appealed.

Obviously my arguments have rubbed you the wrong way because you incorrectly perceive them to be sourced from "authority" as opposed to logic and reason.

PS My tag is Robbie and not Patrick

 

[Andynonomous]

I played sport at a high competitive level ...

As a criminal defence lawyer for 35 years

Here is something "Robbie" wrote in "tennishasasteroidproblem" :



"I am a trained lawyer so I know a little about the law as it relates to defamation.

To suggest publicly that Nadal (or any other player) is a drug cheat is defamatory, as it brings his character and public standing into disrepute."



Of course real lawyers don't go around and brag about their credentials on the internet to win an argument like this.

This "lawyer", also claimed to be a professional tennis coach, amongst other professions. He uses multiple IDs, has been spamming many tennis boards, using adolescent reasoning, yet "tries" to sound smart by injecting big words (that he clearly does not have a proper understanding of).

He does some research before making long "arguments" for his favorite athletes. Unfortunately for him, he uses failed logic to make his case. For example "diminmus non curat lex" is not a valid reason to "aquit" Contador (it doesn't quite mean what "Robbie" would have us believe). It actually means that the case is too trivial for a certain court (like a $5 lawsuit), not that some of the evidence doesn't reach some imaginary threshold.

 

[Merckx index]

As a criminal defence lawyer for 35 years I have constantly through out my career questioned and disagreed with decisions of the courts, authority figures, the establishment and my government (which is not American therefore the pronouncements of the President or the Congress have relevance to me) etc. Those who know me would not call me a yes man.

But that does not mean I can ignore such decisions or pronouncements. That is called accepting reality. Many decisions of the courts I disagree with, such as for example the Supreme Court of Canada are binding. And even though I disagree with them I cannot put my head in the sand and ignore them as if they do not exist or do not apply to my cases. I have to be realistic.

I have tried to present an argument in this thread based on logic and reason that there is no case against Alberto. That there should never have been an investigation based on the ridiclously low amount of clen (the legal principle of "diminmus non curat lex") and that his explanation whether you like it or not was accepted by REFC and should not be appealed.

Obviously my arguments have rubbed you the wrong way because you incorrectly perceive them to be sourced from "authority" as opposed to logic and reason.

PS My tag is Robbie and not Patrick

Sorry about confusing you with someone else, not to mention not paying attention to the fact that you are Canadian (though I'm sure you still got the point of my references). If I'm incorrect in my perceptions of the source of your arguments, it's because I fail to see adequate reasoning backing them up.

Have you disputed any of the points I have made about what Bert has NOT proven? No.

Have you spoken out vociferously in favor of Li Fuyu, who by your standards has an even better case for getting off? Not as far as I can tell.

Have you shown any appreciation for the lack of relationship between drug concentrations in urine and initial dose? Not as far as I can tell.

Your argument boils down to: Bert claims he got the CB from tainted meat, since we can't prove conclusively that he transfused, we should accept his explanation, even though that also remains unproven. You also think riders in general with low CB levels should get off, though to the best of my knowledge you have never posted a vigorous defense of any of them other than Bert here.

I think it's fair to say that if Bert had never tested positive, you would have slept fine at night knowing that Fuyu and others were getting sanctioned. Indeed, I doubt you would even know that they were getting sanctioned. I can assure you that no one in REFC gives a sh-t about Fuyu. This is not about justice or fairness, about equality before the law. It is about getting our boy off, whatever it takes.

Seems to me if you really cared about this issue, you would demand large-scale testing of people in Spain to see what % really do have detectable CB levels as a result of eating meat. Speaking as a scientist, I think that is the only way, at this late date, of ever obtaining significant evidence in favor of the contaminated meat scenario. If it turned out that the probability was quite high, I would be willing to change my opinion about Bert's guilt/innocence.I've actually been a fan of his for a long time (though I've been well aware of his past associations). But the available data on the % of meat that is contaminated are very persuasive.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

In the last two decades of procycling, has there been one case that justifies the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"?

As far as I can remember, whenever there was smoke, there was fire. Give me one counterexample.

Gilberto Simoni - the candy incident

 

[BroDeal]

Gilberto Simoni - the candy incident

If memory serves me right, Simoni was popped for metabolites of cocaine twice. The first time was explained away as lidocaine from a dentist. The second time it was cocaine candies. I tend to think that he had a bit of recreational drug problem.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Here is something "Robbie" wrote in "tennishasasteroidproblem" :



"I am a trained lawyer so I know a little about the law as it relates to defamation.

To suggest publicly that Nadal (or any other player) is a drug cheat is defamatory, as it brings his character and public standing into disrepute."



Of course real lawyers don't go around and brag about their credentials on the internet to win an argument like this.

This "lawyer", also claimed to be a professional tennis coach, amongst other professions. He uses multiple IDs, has been spamming many tennis boards, using adolescent reasoning, yet "tries" to sound smart by injecting big words (that he clearly does not have a proper understanding of).

He does some research before making long "arguments" for his favorite athletes. Unfortunately for him, he uses failed logic to make his case. For example "diminmus non curat lex" is not a valid reason to "aquit" Contador (it doesn't quite mean what "Robbie" would have us believe). It actually means that the case is too trivial for a certain court (like a $5 lawsuit), not that some of the evidence doesn't reach some imaginary threshold.

Andynonomous, you have the wrong Robbie re: your reference above to some comment about Nadal. You are by implication insinuating my comments are in the same category of the lawyer above. If you are in fact a lawyer and if you knew anything about defamation, I would think you would at least get your facts straight. Check my posts. They are available to you. Obviously you didn't do that. Pretty shabby research. Where do I serve you with my claim for defamation?

In addition you have the concept of "diminimus non curat lex" wrong. If you have read any of my posts I did not say AC should be acquitted because of the principle of diminmus non curat lex.

What I said consistently is that no case should ever have been brought because of the diminimus principle. That is the corrrect application of the principle.

Your example of the $5 lawsuit is incorrect and misleading. What you are saying is the $5 lawsuit should be dismissed because of the diminimus principle. The correct approach to using the diminimus principle is the $5 lawsuit should never have been brought to begin with.

Did you actually go to law school?

 

[TubularBills]

If memory serves me right, Simoni was popped for metabolites of cocaine twice. The first time was explained away as lidocaine from a dentist. The second time it was cocaine candies. I tend to think that he had a bit of recreational drug problem.

+1

...which was only a small inconvenience to his 'alleged' systemic drug 'problem'.

TB

sorry to waiver from my usual focus, i.e. I have no substantiation or link, other than a growing skepticism and the obvious corollaries.

Loved to watch him ride, what a shame... and that goes for Contador as well... it's a full boat.

If I wanted fiction, I'd just watch 'Rocky'... again and again.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Have you disputed any of the points I have made about what Bert has NOT proven? No.


Are you on drugs?

 

[GJB123]

In the second place, we do have the DEHP test, until someone comes forward and definitively proves that the reported values are bogus. This IS evidence. If that result is real--and again, no one has come forward to deny it--it is about as strong as the evidence from the HBT test that was used to nail Tyler. It is probably stronger evidence than the altered passport values that have been used to take several athletes out of competition. There are other explanations for altered hematological parameters. There really don’t seem to be credible alternatives for very high DEHP values in the urine. Possibly a false positive, but not very likely.

The DEHP test, if there ever was any done, is NOT evidence. Until now it is just a rumor nothing more. No matter how much you would like it to be different there are no official papers anywhere stating that the test took place and that the result indicated blood doping. Rather than people denying it, I would wait for WADA confirming it. Perhaps this is a small legal issue for your scientific brain, but it is a big issue that you cannot convict someone on the basis of evidence (real or imagined) that was not presented to the courts.

Regards
GJ

 

[python]

contador's lawyer on his defence strategy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...tadors-lawyer-explains-ban-uturn-2222669.html

this bit is interesting if true

"The Basque Government gave us three possibilities, and curiously enough, the owner of the one that was most likely to be it is in partnership with his brother, who was penalised a few years back for using clenbuterol.

 

[GJB123]

You continue to ignore the most basic lessons of pharmacokinetics. The amount of drug detected in a urine sample bears NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the amount taken IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWING WHEN IT WAS TAKEN, BY WHAT ROUTE, AND THE KINETICS OF THE DRUG ITSELF. That value, taken in isolation, is meaningless. Any pharmacologist (and I am one, btw) will tell you that.

You and others do have a point that if CB can be ingested accidentally, then at some point it might be helpful to set a threshold level. But there is nothing magic about such a level. It has to be balanced against the fact that any level can be indicative of doping--that if a rider does not exceed the threshold, it does NOT mean he didn’t dope. The peloton is loaded with riders who have never been busted for either testosterone or EPO, though tests for both have, in effect, threshold levels that everyone in the anti-doping field knows let off many, many guilty riders. It’s probably safe to say that for every innocent rider who is prevented from being wrongly sanctioned, the same threshold that protects him lets at least ten guilty riders get off. If I were being cheated out of prize money and advancement opportunities by this situation, I’d be a little irked by it.

Have you seen all of the files. In fact you have not. To be true you don't have the first clue what exactly was presented and why the theory of blood transfusion was deemed unlikely or impossible. Now we can sit here and speculate to our hearts content, but that is the bottom line.

For all we know, Contador was tested so often that basically from a pharmokinetics point of view there would have been no possibility to have used Clen without flagging up a positive out-of-competetion. S yes, I cannot stop you from reaching your own conclusion based on the facts known to laymen like ourselves, but at least show some awareness that you do not have the full picture yet.

And as for the ratio of guilty riders getting off compared to innocent riders who is prevented from being convicted, you get the figure from where? Gut feeling?

And yes, maybe some of the clean riders are irked by that (self invented) ratio, until they themselves become the innocent rider in dire need of such rules. Mark my words!

To me every innocent rider that is convicted is simply unacceptable, for you it is just collateral damage from the justifiable witch hunt against doping. To hell with normal legal principles!

Regards
GJ