Contador acquitted

[Cimber]

did he do a hairtest?

Dunno

-might anybody appeal?

Yes

http://spn.dk/cykling/article2372486.ece

With several cases where the riders have been acquitted will make it less likely that UCI will appeal imo (I still hope they do so we can get a final verdict). Maybe they really ought to discuss adding a minimum limit so avoid all these cases where many of the riders seem to be innocent

 

[sniper]

Dunno

Yes

http://spn.dk/cykling/article2372486.ece

With several cases where the riders have been acquitted will make it less likely that UCI will appeal imo (I still hope they do so we can get a final verdict). Maybe they really ought to discuss adding a minimum limit so avoid all these cases where many of the riders seem to be innocent

hehe.
You're danish?
I understood only this: "hollandske cykelforbund"


Anyway, will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[python]

indeed. hmmm..

makes one beg for more background information.
-did he do a hairtest?
-might anybody appeal?

yes to both.

the common link between contador and van houts is de boer's expertise as he was hired by both. he also recommended the hair test to van houts which i understand was performed.

don't know what was the rest of his defence but it's reasonable to speculate it was the same as ovcharov's and contador's -- the 'exclusion logic'. if it worked once (ovcharov) it will be used to accrue much mileage till cas strikes it down.

another common link btwn ovcharov, conta and van houts is that their national anti-doping organizations (essentially wada arms) supported them 100%.

 

[theswordsman]

The AlbertoContadorNotebook just posted the English translation Contador paid for of the RFEC Resolution.

http://www.albertocontadornotebook.info/ResolutionContador.pdf

The UCI is having their meeting today about radios and things. One of the topics the group representing cyclists wanted to address is the minimum threshold and Strict Liability.

I haven't seen whether WADA has received a response from their Clenbuterol information request from China.

I still think that procedural mistakes by the UCI and WADa will influence their respective decisions. But the UCI has way more incentive, with the possibility of a 3 million Euro fine.

I'm still waiting for someone to decide the March 24 deadline is bogus. If the RFEC really didn't get them the documents until February 24, and the rule states 30 days, then the fact that February 28 only had 28 should come into play. But it's SOP for the UCI to drag things out until the last minute, then complain in the press about delays.

 

[Publicus]

I had the same question. I dug through the RFEC website (www.rfec.com) and did some Googling, but could not find an official English version.

It would be nice if the author of the CN article put a link in the article, or posted it here. How about it, Pete?

It was posted today on his main fan site. I'm partially through it--one of the most interesting things was that they clarified the reports that RFEC was asking for UCI and WADA to weigh-in on the opinion. In actuality they wanted to give them the opportunity to rebut the science in AC's dossier--which is different. UCI strung them along and WADA said no.

http://www.albertocontadornotebook.info/ResolutionContador.pdf

EDIT: I see Swordsman is Johnny On the Spot yet again.

 

[JPM London]

But it's SOP for the UCI to drag things out until the last minute, then complain in the press about delays.

Truer words have never been spoken

You could also add that they like to push other institutions to act with urgency...

 

[sniper]

yes to both.

the common link between contador and van houts is de boer's expertise as he was hired by both. he also recommended the hair test to van houts which i understand was performed.

don't know what was the rest of his defence but it's reasonable to speculate it was the same as ovcharov's and contador's -- the 'exclusion logic'. if it worked once (ovcharov) it will be used to accrue much mileage till cas strikes it down.

another common link btwn ovcharov, conta and van houts is that their national anti-doping organizations (essentially wada arms) supported them 100%.

so we agree that one big MISSING LINK between AC and the other two is the (missing) hairtest, right?
I'm willing to buy any exclusion logic if it's backed up by a hairtest, and perhaps so is CAS.

On the other hand, I agree that we can't be sure (a) whether AC did a hairtest or not, and (b) whether it would be of any use to him legally. But still, until we know, it is a missing link.

 

[uspostal]

so we agree that one big MISSING LINK between AC and the other two is the (missing) hairtest, right?
I'm willing to buy any exclusion logic if it's backed up by a hairtest, and perhaps so is CAS.

On the other hand, I agree that we can't be sure (a) whether AC did a hairtest or not, and (b) whether it would be of any use to him legally. But still.

Could Bert have had a hair test done that he paid for and keep the results a secret if they came back bad for him. Kind of like a Dr. / patient confidentiality thing that we have in thr US. That may explain why a hair test wasn't done, or results made public.

 

[sniper]

Could Bert have had a hair test done that he paid for and keep the results a secret if they came back bad for him. Kind of like a Dr. / patient confidentiality thing that we have in thr US. That may explain why a hair test wasn't done, or results made public.

yeah, could be.

In any case, we're not the only ones wondering about it. A couple of weeks ago, the German press stated explicitly that AC's case has NO parallels to Ovtcharov's, for one reason: the missing hairtest.

Sorry I don't have a link.

 

[Publicus]

yeah, could be.

In any case, we're not the only ones wondering about it. A couple of weeks ago, the German press stated explicitly that AC's case has NO parallels to Ovtcharov's, for one reason: the missing hairtest.

Sorry I don't have a link.

I continue you to think you (and the German press) are placing FAR too much emphasis on the hair test. What AC lacks in a singular hair test, he makes up for with a bio-passport and double digit number of blood and urine samples over the course of 2010, which Ovtcharov wouldn't have to establish the lack of negative test for clen over the relevant period of time. In short, Ovtcharov HAD to use the hair follicle test because he didn't have any other tests to establish the negative. AC does and they are all conducted by and pursuant to the procedures approved by, the UCI/WADA. Let them invalidate their own test results....

Of course, that's just my opinion. The similarities between the two cases, save locality, are essentially the same from a legal standpoint.

 

[roundabout]

Truer words have never been spoken

You could also add that they like to push other institutions to act with urgency...

It took a month for the other interested party to translate 35 pages of text.

 

[hrotha]

Would a clen cycle (either a standard or a "microdosed", reduced cycle, as some have suggested Contador would have had to use) still register as continued use in a hair test, or would it only pick up repeated cycles? Because if the hair test could detect clen use during several days or a week then it could be enough to either absolve or condemn Contador. As far as we know he wasn't tested after the Dauphiné until "the eve of the Tour", so if the hair test could definitely detect a clen cycle or lack thereof it wouldn't be good just for the PR, as some people have said here, but if it can't detect such a short use it would be completely useless in this case. But I'm probably misunderstanding something.

 

[python]

again, and again and again....and again.

the hair test, as far as we can judge it's legal weight with cas (emphasis - legal, not scientific) from the two cases where it was successfully used - ovcharov* and gesquet - is a rough, approximate indication of being a...

HABITUAL, LONG-TERM USER of a PED IN SUFFICIENTLY LARGE DOZES...or not.

make of it anything you want but don't count on cas following your fancy.

contador may or may not have had the reason to use it.

i'm perfectly comfortable with this uncertainty because i understand the hair test limitations and i tried (in vain it
seems) to pass that point along when asked.

edit: *the ovcharov case was never heard by the cas but the fact that wada dropped the appeal, indicates they respect the evidence based on the hair test if it was brought in front of a cas tribunal.

 

[Publicus]

again, and again and again....and again.

the hair test, as far as we can judge it's legal weight with cas (emphasis - legal, not scientific) from the two cases where it was successfully used - ovcharov* and gesquet - is a rough, approximate indication of being a...

HABITUAL, LONG-TERM USER of a PED IN SUFFICIENTLY LARGE DOZES...or not.

make of it anything you want but don't count on cas following your fancy.

contador may or may not have had the reason to use it.

i'm perfectly comfortable with this uncertainty because i understand the hair test limitations and i tried (in vain it
seems) to pass that point along when asked.

edit: *the ovcharov case was never heard by the cas but the fact that wada dropped the appeal, indicates they respect the evidence based on the hair test if it was brought in front of a cas tribunal.

Can you point me to that post (or give me some idea of when you posted it)? I'd like to read and understand the limitations.

Edit: Never mind, I found it.

 

[hrotha]

HABITUAL, LONG-TERM USER of a PED IN SUFFICIENTLY LARGE DOZES...or not.

Yes, whatever... But what is habitual, long-term use and what are sufficiently large doses?

 

[sniper]

again, and again and again....and again.

the hair test, as far as we can judge it's legal weight with cas (emphasis - legal, not scientific) from the two cases where it was successfully used - ovcharov* and gesquet - is a rough, approximate indication of being a...

HABITUAL, LONG-TERM USER of a PED IN SUFFICIENTLY LARGE DOZES...or not.

make of it anything you want but don't count on cas following your fancy.

contador may or may not have had the reason to use it.

i'm perfectly comfortable with this uncertainty because i understand the hair test limitations and i tried (in vain it
seems) to pass that point along when asked.

edit: *the ovcharov case was never heard by the cas but the fact that wada dropped the appeal, indicates they respect the evidence based on the hair test if it was brought in front of a cas tribunal.

all this is true.
But none of this contradicts the blunt and naked fact that, if AC is unguilty, his hairtest should come out negative.
So a first thing he should have done was a hairtest. This would then at the very least have shown that he isn't what you call an HABITUAL, LONG-TERM USER of a PED IN SUFFICIENTLY LARGE DOZES.

EDIT: or not..

 

[Polish]

For years McQuaid has been telling us that Contador is a clean rider. Now that he has been proven correct by the spanish federation you would think he would be happy right? But no.. he wants to appeal. Tell me, how does that make sense?

I'm not sure the UCI wants to appeal. Makes Cycling look bad.
Cutting of their nose to spite their face?

But WADA is a whole different story.
WADA should be the ones to appeal.
The RFEC decision is a slap in the face of WADA.

WADA has a few weeks beyond the UCI's deadline to launch an appeal.

 

[flicker]

I'm not sure the UCI wants to appeal. Makes Cycling look bad.
Cutting of their nose to spite their face?

But WADA is a whole different story.
WADA should be the ones to appeal.
The RFEC decision is a slap in the face of WADA.

WADA has a few weeks beyond the UCI's deadline to launch an appeal.

I wonder what the NFL/WADA/IOC think of Victor Conte? I would say now their cabal says' What a liar tha Victor Conte is!'

 

[Oldman]

Yes, whatever... But what is habitual, long-term use and what are sufficiently large doses?

Considering van Houts was cleared to ride by the Dutch Fed for his Clen positive it would be interesting if a data comparison could be made. He had returned from Mexico in October and used the meat contamination defense for a test immediately following his visit. I don't know if he was vacationing or racing but in either case it would have been unlikely he would have bloodosed himself if he wasn't in competition. Where was he tested and what levels if the meat defense was accepted?

 

[python]

Can you point me to that post (or give me some idea of when you posted it)? I'd like to read and understand the limitations.

Edit: Never mind, I found it.

glad you did. my posts on the hair test in general and how it could apply to conti are scattered around...

not an expert so take my input for what it's worth, but in summary, it's an occupational quality test that wada is not rushing to adopt. it's main application is the ability to look way beyond the detection window of urine or blood tests but it requires sufficient sample size (several centimeters).

in conta's case, it seems it would make sense to show, just like ovcharov did, he was not a long term user of therapeutic dozes. but, there was risk that if the test was inconclusive, he would have to deal with the action he had little to gain from particularly if his lawyers believed they have other evidence for the purpose (if so, we've never seen it as it was not made public).

there is also the question of testing his spanish dinner mates hair for clen. i'm sure this crossed his lawyers mind. i am speculating they did not use it because, again, an inconclusive random reading wound not be beneficial to his case. if the assumption was that clen was in the fateful dinner meat, and neither conta nor his mates were the regular clen users, to begin with, they did not stand a reasonable chance to find the tiny traces in the hair from a single random contamination. again, sufficiently large, frequent doses were the application area where the hair test was legally effective normally.

then, there was the time of WHEN conta learned of his positive and his ability to respond with the hair test given the delays.

personally i think he had a window for the hair test even though (depending on how one counts) there was a period of almost 7 weeks before he had his positive confirmed by a b-sample. had he been in dire need, he'd have the reason to grow the hair.

but again, lack of the test, in many people's eyes caused understandable suspicions.

 

[GJB123]

I continue you to think you (and the German press) are placing FAR too much emphasis on the hair test. What AC lacks in a singular hair test, he makes up for with a bio-passport and double digit number of blood and urine samples over the course of 2010, which Ovtcharov wouldn't have to establish the lack of negative test for clen over the relevant period of time. In short, Ovtcharov HAD to use the hair follicle test because he didn't have any other tests to establish the negative. AC does and they are all conducted by and pursuant to the procedures approved by, the UCI/WADA. Let them invalidate their own test results....

Of course, that's just my opinion. The similarities between the two cases, save locality, are essentially the same from a legal standpoint.

A (legal) point well made. Yet again, I might add.

Regards
GJ

 

[hrotha]

there is also the question of testing his spanish dinner mates hair for clen. i'm sure this crossed his lawyers mind. i am speculating they did not use it because, again, an inconclusive random reading wound not be beneficial to his case. if the assumption was that clen was in the fateful dinner meat, and neither conta nor his mates were the regular clen users, to begin with, they did stand a reasonable chance to find the tiny traces in the hair from a single random contamination. again, sufficiently large, frequent doses were the application area where the hair test was legally effective normally.

If the hair test could detect tiny traces from a single random contamination, wouldn't it also be able to detect traces from a single cycle, not necessarily long-term use?

 

[python]

If the hair test could detect tiny traces from a single random contamination, wouldn't it also be able to detect traces from a single cycle, not necessarily long-term use?

i was typing too quickly, it was supposed to be 'they did not stand a reasonable chance..'

the context is that in the legal world, a scientific evidence like a hair test result, unless it can be milked fully, is a dangerous tool.

 

[sniper]

i was typing too quickly, it was supposed to be 'they did not stand a reasonable chance..'

the context is that in the legal world, a scientific evidence like a hair test result, unless it can be milked fully, is a dangerous tool.

I'm not sure how it could be legally dangerous for AC. USELESS, perhaps, but dangerous?
Assuming he's innocent, we all agree the CLEN wouldn't turn up in his hair by foodcontamination. So he would have a negative hairtest to support his case, and to strengthen the parallel with Ovcharov and Van Hout.

Again, I agree with Publicus and with you that it's tricky and possibly useless legally. But dangerous? Not if AC is what he says he is (clean I mean).

 

[python]

Again, I agree with Publicus and with you that it's tricky and possibly useless legally. But dangerous? Not if AC is what he says he is (clean I mean).

i several times above used the word an 'inconclusive' test. yes, they sometimes turn out not as expected by either the tester or the tested... for many reasons - environmental, instrumental, pigmented or bleached hair...whatever.
when one commits to a test expecting a negative result that never was delivered , it's a risk one has to think through considering all the out-of-control circumstances i just described. it would be almost impossible to keep an inconclusive test result away from the media leaks as we've seen plenty of papers don't need much to create a loud story.

so, when i used the word 'dangerous' it was from the point of a legal advisor to contador who who would have to weigh in all these risks against the 'not testing at all' considering, if ramos is to be believed, they claim they already have the needed evidence w/o the hair test.

it's a dangerous world, that's why almost everything is dangerous