GJB123 said:
You cannot defend yourself against a mirage DEHP test if yiu are not given the results. Do I have to spell it out for you, are you stupid? It wasn't in the file that WADA sent to Spanish cycling federation, hence AC's team couldn't refute it (there was nothing to refute) and hence the disciplinary commitee couldn't mention it in their verdict.
If Mr Howman was so sure that there was a DEHP test for AC and that it could be used a supoorting evidence in this case, why wasn't it mentioned in the WADA-files sent to Spain? Answer me that one.
Do you have a link for this assertion? Here is Joe Lindsey on the decision:
And while we have some idea of what Contador presented in his defense, there has been zero reporting of what the prosecution presented to support its side – or even, in the opaque world of the RFEC tribunal, who is the prosecution.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2011/02/15/contadors-case-blazes-new-trail/
If I have missed something, and it is known for a certainty that there was no mention of DEHP in the files, then my answer would be that it's because the test is not validated, and maybe until it is (see below) it can't be part of the case. IOW, Bert is getting off on a technicality. I can't do anything about that, but just because some technicality doesn't allow evidence to be considered doesn't mean I won't consider it to come to my own conclusions.
LA can't be sanctioned for the '99 samples, either, but that doesn't mean that anyone coming to his own conclusion about whether he doped can't consider that evidence. And I would say to Bert what I would say to Lance: just because you can't be sanctioned for something that looks very suspicious doesn't mean you shouldn't address the allegations. The point for superstar role models is not just to be not guilty. It's to be above suspicion.
RC expressed outrage that Bert’s reputation has been savaged. Indeed it has. The question is, what has he done to try to repair it? He has many, many options:
1) He could demand to know the specifics of the DEHP test on his samples, in order to try to refute it in a meaningful sense of the word. He can certainly afford the best scientific advice here. If the data were made up, or if there were mistakes made in the test, surely some deep digging would stand a good chance of revealing this.
2) He could offer to get tested for DEHP regularly, to see if perhaps he is one of those apparently rare individuals who has, at least at certain times, very high levels of the substance that cannot be explained by transfusion. Even the most flagrant doper, Ricco, maybe, doesn't transfuse very often. If Bert were to demonstrate consistently high DEHP levels over a period of weeks or months, everyone would accept that they were not the result of transfusion.
3) He could ask to see DEHP data from other riders, to see if perhaps the control baseline is higher than is indicated by published studies. These tests could probably be carried out in a way that didn't implicate these other riders, if it were necessary to do so for legal reasons. The samples are there, they don't have to be identified.
4) If Bert continues to eat meat on occasion, he could make sure he gets tested for CB following every such meal, to see just how likely it is that one can test positive after eating meat. Because if he really tested positive as a result of contaminated meat, I find it virtually inconceivable that it would not happen again over the course of ten, twenty or however more meals. Really, if this is a significant problem, isn't Bert, or any rider who eats meat on occasion, concerned? He would be doing the entire peloton as well as himself a huge favor by providing evidence that could bring this problem out into the open. Then the calls for setting a threshold would make sense. Everyone could see the need to do this, even if it did mean some false negatives.
5) He could also ask Fran and his close friends to do the same, to accumulate some kind of evidence that would demonstrate CB contamination from food is a real problem. If it is, surely out of hundreds of samples following a meal of meat, some more positives will turn up.
If Bert is truly innocent, as he claims, what in the world does he have to lose by taking these steps? Yet to the best of my knowledge, he has not done any of these things. The message I get is not that he is intent on proving he didn’t dope. He is intent on convincing RFEC that he should not be sanctioned. Those are not the same things, no matter how much some people conflate them.
I understand that his first priority is being allowed to race again, whatever it takes. But don’t complain about the stress you have endured, the unfair hit your reputation has taken, if you aren’t willing to take some very obvious steps that could repair the damage.
Furthermore, AC and his team have refuted the alleged plasticizer-findings in October when they first came out in German media.
Again, can you provide a link? If you mean, Bert denied that he transfused, sure. But I would hardly call that a refutation. Anyone can deny any charge. You refute a charge by providing evidence against it. Did he establish that the test never took place? No. Did he establish that the reported level of DEHP was incorrect? No. I’m not sure what you mean by “refuted”, but you seem to be using the term in a sense that would apply to any athlete testing positive who claims innocence.
Could it perhaps be that it was a rumor and that Mr Howman inadvertently reacted to that rumor without actually knowing whether it could be applied to AC's case? Because all I can find is a general nmention by him that a DEHP-test could used as supprting evidence, however he doesn't state anywhere that there actually is such a result in this particular case. But if you gave a link or anything stating otherwise, I would be might interested.
The news of the scientific paper’s publication [on DEHP test] was reported today in El Pais. The article quoted an unnamed source close to the scientific committee of WADA, who suggested that the push for approval could be linked to the Tour de France winner Alberto Contador.
“The publication complies exactly with the description of what WADA calls a validation article, which is necessary so that a method can be used officially by laboratories as an anti-doping test,” they told El Pais. “I can’t help suspecting that this is related to the position of Contador.”
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7...ation-in-anti-doping-cases.aspx#ixzz1EvXNxI5h
Why would he think this is related to Contador unless they believe that there is such a result?
As you for your last paragraph. You have made it abundantkly clear that you couldn't give a rat's a$$ about someone being convicted innocently. Do you apply that same notion to common poenal law as well? If yes, that to me is shocking and you are a very scary person indeed.
Not really, I just see that there is, always has been and always will be a trade-off between false positives and false negatives. Which means that protecting the innocent will always involve letting some guilty riders off. Like a great many other people, you studiously avoid confronting this sad but irrefutable fact, clinging to the fairy-tale notion of a system where no innocent person is punished AND no guilty person ever gets off. Or if you acknowledge that guilty people are constantly getting off, you refuse to confront the very serious damage this does to the innocent. You see the innocent victim getting suspended for a year or two and feel his pain. You don’t see the many innocent victims being cheated out of their livelihood, and don’t feel their pain at all. Seeing reality begins with acknowledging that there will ALWAYS be one or the other. If I appear to be scary to some people because I refuse to close my eyes and pretend this isn’t happening, so be it.
Bassons, who in effect received a lifetime ban, was a victim not simply of doping, but of an anti-doping system that allowed inferior riders to slip through the cracks. Suppose, hypothetically, there had been a different system in place that cleaned up the peloton to a degree that allowed Bassons to have a full and very successful career--but one innocent rider was suspended. Maybe you think that's a bad tradeoff. More likely, you would prefer to bury your head in the sand and pretend that tradeoffs like this don't have to occur. I'm afraid they do, and have been occurring for a long time.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram