Sorry, I missed this.
Well, first of all, Carlos de Andrés never talks about doping except to toe the omerta line: doping exists, but it's not as bad as people think, it's only a few rotten apples, cyclists are victims of the system, yadda yadda. Aside from being the commentator for cycling events, he's also the director of Teledeporte, so he has a lot to say about what goes on air - during the Vuelta, that included a special feature with Valverde where he was portrayed as a victim and where at no time it was suggested that he did in fact dope. He had Heras in the studio commentating another stage and, again, he focused on how he was blacklisted once his ban was over but without touching on the fact that he doped. Same with all doping cases. Same with Contador before this interview.
Now, as for this specific case, aside from the direct question of whether he doped, what does he focus on? On Astana. On UCI shenanigans. On how Alberto feels abandoned by everybody and is so sad. Basically, on how much of a victim he is. He asks Contador about how Astana has treated him, and he presses on until Contador's feelings on his former team are perfectly clean, and yet he doesn't show the same zeal to ask him about his doping case. He even goes as far as to ask if he's confident no one in his team has doped him without his knowledge.
But Alberto's possible guilt is dealt with in one simple question: "Have you ever doped?", to which Contador answers "No". And that's it. No further pressure. No questions about why he's so sure it was the meat, when even UCI brought up other non-doping possibilities. No real questions about what happened between the moment he was notified of his positive and the moment it was made public, about how he decided his line of defense, about UCI's role in it (keeping his positive confidential against their normal MO, qualifying his positive in their press release by saying it was a "very small amount" of clenbuterol, which again goes against their normal MO, suggesting Contador to hire a certain specialist for his defense, etc). De Andrés implies the UCI are the bad guys here, without trying to explore the things that can and have been interpreted as the UCI trying to protect Contador. There was no attempt to establish whether the results of the plasticizers test were a fabrication or a leak of true information either. No discussion of Contador's career with Iberdrola, ONCE and Liberty (Saiz), Discovery Channel and Astana (Bruyneel, and a positive once there's no more Bruyneel) or about Puerto to challenge his claim that he had never doped.
Carlos de Andrés, like many other "journalists" in the cycling world, depends too much on his close relations with the riders and DS's.