Contador and Spanish cycling

[Grandillusion]

If Ashenden was so convinced by his analysis then he could and should have requested proceedings against the athlete based on the provisions of the AMPU and all relevant data?

He hasn't...

Has Ashenden ever addressed the plethora of other clenbuterol contamination cases presented and the hugely inconsistent mix of acquittals and sanctions handed out?

It's always a pleasure to see 'Team Sky' fans taking an interest in old cases...

Well I'm certainly not a Team Sky fan. I barely know anything about professional cycling apart from the fact it's riddled with cheating and corruption. Such a shame. At least Ashenden is not wholly cynical about the motives of most of the cheaters, and has some empathy with the (relatively few these days according to him) ones that are at it. He does seem to suggest the overall situation is improving.

His frustration seems to lie more with the authorities than the riders.

 

[Nilsson]

If Ashenden was so convinced by his analysis then he could and should have requested proceedings against the athlete based on the provisions of the AMPU and all relevant data?

He hasn't...

Exactly. I'll give Ashenden some slack though. He never says AC transfused, only that he could have transfused. He (tries) to stipulate that, time after time, which I give him credit for. It's also important to state that the 'methods' he used to constitute that posibility were not collaborated. When he analyzed AC's blood values to find any irregularities he used methods and definitions (like 'normal retic percentage', and at random cherry picking in available data - IOW tunnel view analyzing, towards the objective) that aren't accepted scientifically. He was asked to give an explanation on why he did what he did, but he couldn't/didn't and explicitly said he couldn't conclude that AC had blood doped - which also wasn't the objective, since only the possibility had to be there in his opinion.

 

[Grandillusion]

Exactly. I'll give Ashenden some slack though. He never says AC transfused, only that he could have transfused. He (tries) to stipulate that, time after time, which I give him credit for. It's also important to state that the 'methods' he used to constitute that posibility were not collaborated. When he analyzed AC's blood values to find any irregularities he used methods and definitions (like 'normal retic percentage', and at random cherry picking in available data - IOW tunnel view analyzing, towards the objective) that aren't accepted scientifically. He was asked to give an explanation on why he did what he did, but he couldn't/didn't and explicitly said he couldn't conclude that AC had blood doped - which also wasn't the objective, since only the possibility had to be there in his opinion.

It's corroborated, not collaborated.

What do you mean by "he used methods and definitions that aren't accepted scientifically"?

He was stopped from giving an explanation by the legal process followed during the hearing, and was quite clear about the enormous frustration he felt at being silenced.

If ever I've read a more cogent and convincing description of a process than the one Ashenden gave in that interview, then I've yet to read one.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If Ashenden was so convinced by his analysis then he could and should have requested proceedings against the athlete based on the provisions of the AMPU and all relevant data?

He hasn't...

So Ashenden can bring cases against athletes?
Would you like to review and correct that statement.

Has Ashenden ever addressed the plethora of other clenbuterol contamination cases presented and the hugely inconsistent mix of acquittals and sanctions handed out?

It's always a pleasure to see 'Team Sky' fans taking an interest in old cases...

Nothing inconsistent in those cases when you look at how the clenbuterol entered the system.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

So Ashenden can bring cases against athletes?
Would you like to review and correct that statement.

Did you miss the:

>>>> ? <<<<

What statement, It's a question?

Are you saying that the AMPU can't flag riders meeting the 3 strike policy for action and or eventual prosecution?

Nothing inconsistent in those cases when you look at how the clenbuterol entered the system.

I'm not seeing the same global consistency, sorry.

Many take issue with the current rules and their many varied interpretations, the seemingly random reactions from WADA to given sanctions, geographical bias, or the inflexibility and out of sync nature of those rules, as can be clearly seen in the 2015 WADA code revue.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

Well I'm certainly not a Team Sky fan. I barely know anything about professional cycling apart from the fact it's riddled with cheating and corruption. Such a shame. At least Ashenden is not wholly cynical about the motives of most of the cheaters, and has some empathy with the (relatively few these days according to him) ones that are at it. He does seem to suggest the overall situation is improving.

His frustration seems to lie more with the authorities than the riders.

I think that's an understandable and global frustration... Not least among teams trying to field riders.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Did you miss the:

>>>> ? <<<<

What statement, It's a question?

I did - I also saw your answer ("he hasn't) to the question,

Are you saying that the AMPU can't flag riders meeting the 3 strike policy for action and or eventual prosecution?

You said Ashenden should have brought it. Now you are saying APMU.

I'm not seeing the same global consistency, sorry.

Many take issue with the current rules and their many varied interpretations, the seemingly random reactions from WADA to given sanctions, geographical bias, or the inflexibility and out of sync nature of those rules, as can be clearly seen in the 2015 WADA code revue.

WADA stated quite clearly the would review each clenbuterol case on its own - which is why Contador was convicted at CAS.

 

[Grandillusion]

I think that's an understandable and global frustration... Not least among teams trying to field riders.

It's a global frustration amongst everyone except the teams and riders if their silence recently is anything to go by.

Not a peep of criticism of the UCI or, for instance, Bugno's disgraceful public utterances and transparent politicking.

Not so global a frustration apparently amongst the fans posting excitedly on the PRR side of this site either.

And Ashenden has resigned from the Lausanne jokers in disgust at their apparent complicity in the whole stinking affair hasn't he? Aren't Ferrari & Fuentes now on board? Not sure if Conconi is a dirty doctor too, I'm no expert, but the whole thing appears as dirty as can be to me.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

Thanks

I did - I also saw your answer ("he hasn't) to the question,

Are you saying he has brought a case based on the AMPU provisions?

You said Ashenden should have brought it. Now you are saying APMU.

In his capacity on the AMPU.

WADA stated quite clearly the would review each clenbuterol case on its own - which is why Contador was convicted at CAS.

Precisely,

Philip Nielsen. WADA CAS appeal dropped on the eve of hearing after footballers test positive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks



Are you saying he has brought a case based on the AMPU provisions?



In his capacity on the AMPU.

Which is why I asked if you wished to review and correct.

Also - its the APMU, and it was not what the UCI was relying on when Contador was positive back in 2010. The UCI had a 9 person panel and again Ahsenden would not have been able to do anything on his own.

Precisely,

Philip Nielsen. WADA CAS appeal dropped on the eve of hearing after footballers test positive.

As they all tested positive in Mexico.
See, consistent

 

[Le Baroudeur]

It's a global frustration amongst everyone except the teams and riders if their silence recently is anything to go by.

Not a peep of criticism of the UCI or, for instance, Bugno's disgraceful public utterances and transparent politicking.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge frustration based on reactions and or silence. Many cultural variations in approach, and a lot of politics at play.

The UCI being judge and jury around which teams must work...

Alberto's team have withheld riders, and the sponsor called for the resignations of the UCI management, as had the teams Federation.
Their world tour status is now under threat.

A fair few teams have just signed new riders who may or may not be banned shortly based on recent disclosure and leaks regarding pending investigations into other teams with no latitude to replace them.

UCI application of rules, and backdating them causing chaos.

Media slur campaigns and ex riders selling books.

Not so global a frustration apparently amongst the fans posting excitedly on the PRR side of this site either.

Most fans just want and end and to it all and on with the racing?

And Ashenden has resigned from the Lausanne jokers in disgust at their apparent complicity in the whole stinking affair hasn't he? Aren't Ferrari & Fuentes now on board? Not sure if Conconi is a dirty doctor too, I'm no expert, but the whole thing appears as dirty as can be to me.

Fuentes and Ferrari are banned for life from all sport. Not sure if they can change plea.

IIRC I thought Ashenden had differences of interpretation and action, and issue with the confidentiality claus? Rider Blood data is Medical and privileged. I'm sure others have a better knowledge of his reasoning.

Anyway this is all way off topic.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

As they all tested positive in Mexico.
See, consistent

Being that I live in Europe and had Mexican Beef for lunch, and that had the young footballers not tested positive he would now be banned... Laughter or cool isn't my first reaction to a supposed strict, defined rule set.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Being that I live in Europe and had Mexican Beef for lunch, and that had the young footballers not tested positive he would now be banned... Laughter or cool isn't my first reaction to a supposed strict, defined rule set.

Indeed, your first reaction yet again appears to be exaggeration.
You have no idea if Nielsen would have been banned as WADA withdrew their appeal before it went to CAS (for the very reason that others in Mexico had tested positive and they knew it was unlikely to succeed).

In Mexico they had no controls on clenbuterol in their livestock there - unlike in the EU where you have the traceability which is why you know you had Mexican beef and Contadors was from within Spain.

 

[airstream]

Levi and Popovych rented an appartment together in France (be)for(e) the 2007 Tour, where Marti drew and stored their blood. There is nothing known about any other Disco-rider. Hincapie said, in his affadavit, he was clean since that year...

Lol, I remember Popovych blogged on sport.ua during the 2007 Tour. He sincerely resented due to arbitrariness of anti-doping оrganizations which woke the team up at 3 am and tested. Popo said that Contador had nearly bowed to their feet for the fact how they worked and the team was very cohesive and tried to do all the things together in order to feel less pressure.

A month ago Popo and Grivko engaged a meeting with fans in Kiev. My friend asked Yarik about that Tour and why he did so bad in Lotto. Popovych repplied shortly: 'I don't say about doping and matter related to doping'.

What double-tongued rats.

 

[airstream]

Levi and Popovych rented an appartment together in France (be)for(e) the 2007 Tour, where Marti drew and stored their blood. There is nothing known about any other Disco-rider. Hincapie said, in his affadavit, he was clean since that year...

Lol, I remember Popovych blogged on sport.ua during the 2007 Tour. He sincerely resented due to arbitrariness of anti-doping оrganizations which woke the team up at 3 am and tested. Popo said that Contador had nearly bowed to their feet for the fact how they worked and the team was very cohesive and tried to do all the things together in order to feel less pressure. What double-tongued rats.

A month ago Popo and Grivko engaged a meeting with fans in Kiev. My friend asked Yarik about that Tour and why he did so bad in Lotto. Popovych repplied shortly: 'I don't say about doping and matters related to doping'. But he is a great guy actually. Someone asked about Ferrari — Popo made a joke:' Ferrari turned me down and said doping helps only oldies. You are capable of anything himself'.

 

[frenchfry]

Indeed, your first reaction yet again appears to be exaggeration.
You have no idea if Nielsen would have been banned as WADA withdrew their appeal before it went to CAS (for the very reason that others in Mexico had tested positive and they knew it was unlikely to succeed).

In Mexico they had no controls on clenbuterol in their livestock there - unlike in the EU where you have the traceability which is why you know you had Mexican beef and Contadors was from within Spain.

For me the unbelievable part of Contador's story is that he asked an acquaintance to bring Spanish beef to him during the TDF. This just doesn't pass the smell test for me, who would actually make a request like this? If it was beef he had actually eaten while in Spain at least I wouldn't have the impulse to laugh at how ridiculous this excuse is.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Contador joins the Clean Crusader Brigade.
The movement was already pretty laughable, so why not?

 

[airstream]

UCI must cook up one more anti-doping charter with especially harsh consequences for those who are popped. Something like $1M from the team for caught rider.

It seems we already have one more anti-doping team block: Argos, Cofidis, Europcar as far as I know. Saxo already joined this?

 

[Le Baroudeur]

For me the unbelievable part of Contador's story is that he asked an acquaintance to bring Spanish beef to him during the TDF. This just doesn't pass the smell test for me, who would actually make a request like this? If it was beef he had actually eaten while in Spain at least I wouldn't have the impulse to laugh at how ridiculous this excuse is.

I really have no interest in going over the case particulars again being that it was settled at CAS, but this really isn't relevant opinion to plausibility is it?

However, you find it unbelievable that people would import local delicacies? Like say a bottle of fizzy wine from your favourite boutique terroir in Champagne, or Organic Rare Flour from Denmark like a certain team chef does?

Have a quick read about what turned up at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle when they actually bothered to check during a 17 Day study.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

Indeed, your first reaction yet again appears to be exaggeration.
You have no idea if Nielsen would have been banned as WADA withdrew their appeal before it went to CAS (for the very reason that others in Mexico had tested positive and they knew it was unlikely to succeed).

In Mexico they had no controls on clenbuterol in their livestock there - unlike in the EU where you have the traceability which is why you know you had Mexican beef and Contadors was from within Spain.

No you're right, could might have been better however, my comment was based on reading and analysis at the time (highly Probable iirc), and to be honest, it doesn't change the argument about the inconsistent approach to the application of the rules as read. The point has also been raised regarding the nature of effort required for proof, being that a single entity (say a calf), once consumed isn't available as proof, where a supplement may or may not have parts available, which is again inconsistent effort required, further the burden placed on an athlete for proof compromises consistency based on the athletes financial ability to afford the process of gathering and presenting such proof.

Again why should athletes attending certain countries get different consideration to those in Europe? If the global food standards prevent global enforcement policy then why should there be a global rule applied at all when it isn't enforced upon all? Why continue a policy of proof when it's a known issue that contamination does occur? Why does the UKADA recommend against eating Liver when athletes have failed tests eating meat rather than offal? It's an inconsistent mess and consistent inconsistency is even more of a mess if the rule does not allow for it which is certainly not consistent policy, and I'm sure you see that.

As for traceability... That's actually not as clear cut a guarantee as one would hope, or subject to the levels of monitoring that would guarantee no contamination, and assumes no illicit practice, mislabelling, or tampering has occurred, nor does it address the rapid turnover of the product. there are controls but they are open for abuse, and abused.

 

[D-Queued]

For me the unbelievable part of Contador's story is that he asked an acquaintance to bring Spanish beef to him during the TDF. This just doesn't pass the smell test for me, who would actually make a request like this? If it was beef he had actually eaten while in Spain at least I wouldn't have the impulse to laugh at how ridiculous this excuse is.

Exactly.

When you consider the size of the lie that is doping, then this new lie is so trivial as to be merely reflex.

When Clentador admits to doping, then voluntarily removes himself from the sport, and calls on everyone else to follow his example, only then will such a plea be honest.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No you're right, could might have been better however, my comment was based on reading and analysis at the time (highly Probable iirc), and to be honest, it doesn't change the argument about the inconsistent approach to the application of the rules as read. The point has also been raised regarding the nature of effort required for proof, being that a single entity (say a calf), once consumed isn't available as proof, where a supplement may or may not have parts available, which is again inconsistent effort required, further the burden placed on an athlete for proof compromises consistency based on the athletes financial ability to afford the process of gathering and presenting such proof.

Again why should athletes attending certain countries get different consideration to those in Europe? If the global food standards prevent global enforcement policy then why should there be a global rule applied at all when it isn't enforced upon all? Why continue a policy of proof when it's a known issue that contamination does occur? Why does the UKADA recommend against eating Liver when athletes have failed tests eating meat rather than offal? It's an inconsistent mess and consistent inconsistency is even more of a mess if the rule does not allow for it which is certainly not consistent policy, and I'm sure you see that.

As for traceability... That's actually not as clear cut a guarantee as one would hope, or subject to the levels of monitoring that would guarantee no contamination, and assumes no illicit practice, mislabelling, or tampering has occurred, nor does it address the rapid turnover of the product. there are controls but they are open for abuse, and abused.

To the blue - so countries outside Europe should be held to the same standard as Europe, even though they do not hold the same standard?

Then in the next sentence you mention 'global'.
It is why WADA said they would look at clen positives on a case by case manner - because there is not a clear 'global' standard on food.
Your arguements are almost 2 years old - Contador had his opportunity (quite rightly) and it was dismissed.

 

[Grandillusion]

Hope this is not off-topic (I don't think it is), but does anybody know the current APMU expert-panel member-list?

Also, when were Michele Ferrari, and Dr Fuentes (maybe Conconi too?) given the heave ho? They were all new members in early April this year according to Cyclismas (but it's a self-described satirical site, so maybe it was just a joke).

 

[Dazed and Confused]

UCI must cook up one more anti-doping charter with especially harsh consequences for those who are popped. Something like $1M from the team for caught rider.

It seems we already have one more anti-doping team block: Argos, Cofidis, Europcar as far as I know. Saxo already joined this?

In a revised WT ranking system, doping would simply cost the team points for the coming season. A rider testing positive: -100 points. A rider banned: -200 points etc.

Anti doping block involving Argos: With the news of Germany's NADA appealing the UV light treatment ruling to CAS, both Kttel and Gretsch could see themselves being banned mid season. Great start.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

To the blue - so countries outside Europe should be held to the same standard as Europe, even though they do not hold the same standard?

No, why should European athletes be held to higher standards than elsewhere and flagrant assumptions be made about European food standards and their effectiveness of applying them.

Then in the next sentence you mention 'global'.
It is why WADA said they would look at clen positives on a case by case manner - because there is not a clear 'global' standard on food.

Yes, global, one rule for all... the clue is in the W of WADA. Otherwise split the UCI into continental sized chunks, and similarly WADA, and keep the sides apart.

Your arguements are almost 2 years old - Contador had his opportunity (quite rightly) and it was dismissed.

If my arguments are two years old that would be because the subject matter of the post they were originally directed toward was also two years old, and frankly it's not a matter I choose to debate beyond addressing the flame-baiting and diversionary nature of that post and affiliation of the poster. But for the courtesy of replying to your remarks, having genuinely, and generally, long regarded your contribution to this board, I would not have done so.

To be clear this isn't about Contador's sanction or guilt specifically for my part, I'm fine with it, although I sense it might be for you... I don't agree that there is consistency within this sport, or across sports in general, nor do I necessarily see the merit in perusing athletes for substances that are common contaminants.

Being that we are unable to agree why not let the tread get back on topic, namely chastisement of Spanish riders based on reportage in the press.