Taminelli, who defended Pellizotti, Gusev and Scarponi, has been working for Contador for a month. I actually like going against the lack of a threshold considering the possibility of involuntary ingestion. Every other rider could have had thirty times as much Clenbuterol in their system as Contador but still come up negative.
I've been following the Google News for a while, so I'll post copies of my tweets here in case anyone is interested in the articles. There are a lot of individual puzzle pieces out there. Most recent on the top.
Contador attorney Andy Ramos has contacted an American professor who did some testing to see if Contador's story is plausible (in terms of amount, not the source of the steak)
http://www.sport.es/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=44&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=730331&idseccio_PK=1268
A bit more from Contador attorney Rocco Taminelli
http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=34120&tp=n
Rocco Taminelli has worked a month for Contador, says Alberto is a bit of a WADA scapegoat. #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2dow54t
Opinion piece about @AlbertoContador by a Spanish doctor citing previous studies about Clenbuterol in cyclists
http://tinyurl.com/39448e3
WADA is preparing for the @AlbertoContador case. #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/32pxy77
Informative Carlos Castano interview about Contador case #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/297clus
Details about the Spanish Cycling Federation Competition Committee #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2dndgtd
Contador has the receipt for the steak #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/26pbhsk
# More about the Contador case, lawyers, likelihood that WADA, not UCI, will go to CAS. #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ao97n2 9:03 PM Nov 9th via web
Contador hired Pellizotti's lawyer #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23w43hg 7:28 PM Nov 9th via web
The UCI sent the Spanish Cycling Federation more than 600 pages of documents on Contador #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29qxpb4 5:42 PM Nov 9th via web
Castano said that if complexity of the Contador case requires Spanish limit of 3 months, so be it #procycling
http://tinyurl.com/28zd5gn 3:56 PM Nov 9th via web
This seems to say @AlbertoContador asked the UCI to request the disciplinary proceedings + quotes #procycling
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29jbcxx 1:20 PM Nov 9th via web
That YT video apology from Contador to Schleck was Riis' idea? Yipes! #procycling
http://ekstrabladet.dk/sport/cykling/article1446379.ece 10:30 AM Nov 7th via web
The rest of this is off-topic and was probably discussed elsewhere - sorry, I haven't been around.
I think there's some pretty shady stuff going on with the UCi & WADA over this and other issues. For instance, Howman took heat over the recommendation for off hour testing, and he separated WADA from the Independent Observers who made the recommendation, and claimed a reporter misinterpreted it, even though it's right there in English on their website.
But there are discrepancies between the UCI stories about whether they did the A & B samples before talking to Contador, or the newer version that says he requested it. They also claim that they received notice of the positive A sample on August 23, a month and 2 days after the sample. They had the Lausanne Lab turn all of their many samples around in 72 hours. I believe I read that ten total went to Cologne, where there was no agreement, but IO said all results were back within the ten working day lab standard. Now the UCI says it was more than a month for the result. So the Cologne Lab is slow, and has a number of people who like to leak confidential information to the press to the detriment of an athlete?
The worst for me was looking at the chart at the end of the TdF report. If I'm reading it correctly, a grand total of 144 samples were tested for EPO and ONLY for EPO, for the whole race. 33 blood samples were tested for HGH and ONLY for HGH, with at least 1 rider having more than one in that count. 32 samples were tested for CERA.
124 blood samples went only for Biological Passport info, without testing for banned substances. Then there was the nonsense below, and remember, this was what they did when every movement was being watched, unlike the Giro or Vuelta
• While recognising the high level of testing and a focus on targeting riders in the Pre-Tour period (i.e. April to June 2010) it was noted that there were a number of riders of significance who took part in the Tour who had either not been tested during the Pre-Tour period or who had only been tested once (with the majority of these for the ABP).
• During the Tour, a number of riders demonstrating suspicious profiles and/or showing significantly impressive performances at the Tour were tested on surprisingly few occasions and for three riders of interest did not provide a blood sample for the purposes of anti-doping in the whole Tour (instead each providing a single sample for the ABP). This was consistent with the IO Team’s view that at times more weight was given by the UCI to ABP samples than samples for the detection of the ‘presence’ of prohibited substances and/or methods.
• The IO Team was surprised to see that a random draw was conducted for Post-Finish testing on two stages. The IO Team did question the rationale of even conducting a random draw, and while recognising that the particular stage was a flat one (which usually finishes in a bunch sprint), it seemed a missed opportunity not to use the intelligence available to the UCI or even base the selections on the performance of the riders in the stage. This was considered by the UCI after the first random draw was conducted and the IO Team only observed one further random draw being conducted again on the Tour.
• A rider identified as having a priority index of eight (with ten being the highest and most at risk of doping) was tested only once (urine EPO) during the Pre-Tour period with no blood sample collected for the analysis of CERA, HBT, HBOC or other prohibited substances and/or methods. During the Tour recommendations from the Laboratory related to target testing for EPO did not seem to be conducted expediently or as appropriate (ie. the EPO test was conducted 6 days later while the blood sample was only analysed for hGH). Lastly, following a significant delay in providing an early morning sample and in conjunction with the intelligence already held on this rider, there seems no evidence of more intense target testing on this rider.
• For a rider identified as having a priority index of ten, no blood samples were collected following the Laboratory recommendations after interpretation of blood passport data from the first week of the Tour, with only urine being collected and no blood as recommended by the Laboratory. Further, a recommendation to target test the rider for EPO took seven days to be executed.
• A rider identified as having a priority index of ten was not tested for either urine or blood from 3 April to the start of the Tour. Recommendations made by the Laboratory following testing in the first three days of the Tour resulted in no further blood samples being collected but rather only urine and approximately ten days later. The IO Team became aware of the remarks made by the laboratory regarding the analysis of this rider’s specific sample that raised the suspicion of the use of proteases. No further information regarding any actions taken by the UCI for further analysis of that sample was made available.
• For a rider identified as having a priority index of eight, who was recommended to be target tested for EPO by the Laboratory, the UCI did not target test the rider and in addition a sample collected five days later was not analysed for EPO. Interestingly in this case collection of follow-up samples from this rider was initiated by the AFLD via the WADA Resolution
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...endent-Observer/WADA_IO_Report_TDF2010_EN.pdf