Timmy-loves-Rabo said:lol this is clutching at straws.
I have a feeling conta is gonna get done.
Yep, he's going down. That is, unless the folks at CAS can be bought.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:lol this is clutching at straws.
I have a feeling conta is gonna get done.
18-Valve. (pithy) said:Yep, he's going down. That is, unless the folks at CAS can be bought.
Cimber said:While I agree that he is likely to get some sort of a ban it disgusts me when ppl draw their own conslusion to such an extend that the message becomes "either CAS rules according to my belief or they are all corrupted". We dont have full insight in the case, so I urge ppl to calm down and accept the verdict even in the unlikely case that he becomes aquitted
18-Valve. (pithy) said:It's .25 percent, not 3, as per Contador's atty:
"We showed that the testing for clenbuterol [in livestock] is not infallible in Europe," Ramos told The Independent.
"There is a European Union norm - 96/23/CE, dating from 1996 - which states that only 0.25 per cent of cattle should be tested for clenbuterol. So 99.75 per cent are not."
"During the very same period the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture says that there have been no positives for clenbuterol in [Spanish] cattle. But we've shown that the police have gone on arresting people for using clenbuterol and other banned substances in their livestock."
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...lawyer-explains-u-turn-over-proposed-ban.html
18-Valve. (pithy) said:The verdict will be based on "probability." Blood doping versus contaminated Spanish meat. If that's the case, then Contador shouldn't stand a chance, even if you assume, for argument's sake, that the man is innocent. It should be obvious by now that his defense can't prove the contaminated meat story.
LaFlorecita said:They don't need to prove their explanation, they need to prove it is the most likely explanation. Which basically more likely than the transfusion theory.
Benotti69 said:Better check the history of cycling and the history of the tours winners since 1991*, doping. So when did Contador 'climb' in performance above dping to beat them to the most prestige event in cyclings calendar.
Stop shaking the maracs for a guy who is a doper and his history points to it without the clen positive.
*Doping has gone hand in hand with cycling, but the 90's changed everything with epo doping and blood doping. It appears it hasn't stopped, according to the recent Fuentes cases and Armstrong's recent links to Ferarri not to mention the blood passport being used to monitor athletes.
LaFlorecita said:They don't need to prove their explanation, they need to prove it is the most likely explanation. Which basically means more likely than the transfusion theory.
18-Valve. (pithy) said:True, but I don't see how that would be possible without proof. A blood transfusion will always be the most likely explanation considering the fact that it didn't happen in, say, Mexico or China.
18-Valve. (pithy) said:Yep, he's going down. That is, unless the folks at CAS can be bought.
Contador’s defense has pushed the inadvertent positive claim successfully. But in its hearing before the Spanish cycling federation, they never presented evidence that meets the threshold for that claim.
To pursue a no-fault-or-negligence argument, an athlete must prove not only that inadvertent ingestion was possible but also how it came to be – that is, you have to show that it was the only plausible cause. Then, and only then, can you argue for a reduced ban or no ban.
Someone might want to tell Contador’s attorney about this, since Gorka Villar told El Pais, “If the arbitrators believe your thesis has a 51 percent chance of having happened, you’ve won.”
No, Gorka, the phrase is “comfortable satisfaction of the panel,” (PDF: Rule 10.4, page 55) which is defined to be somewhere between a mere probability and no reasonable doubt.
18-Valve. (pithy) said:The verdict will be based on "probability." Blood doping versus contaminated Spanish meat. If that's the case, then Contador shouldn't stand a chance, even if you assume, for argument's sake, that the man is innocent. It should be obvious by now that his defense can't prove the contaminated meat story.
Vino attacks everyone said:This is a weird thing, the athlete actually has to prove that he is NOT doping? i always thought that the prosecutor had to prove that he DID use doping, am i correct?
Vino attacks everyone said:This is a weird thing, the athlete actually has to prove that he is NOT doping? i always thought that the prosecutor had to prove that he DID use doping, am i correct?
DirtyWorks said:My understanding is this is an appeal, not a new procedure. So you are left with the 'evidence' used in the Spanish cycling federation's procedure. This works great for everyone but anti-doping interests.
CAS is a blessing. The UCI gets to look tough appealing the positive while to the people that matter, ASO/Pat/Team Contador know everything is stacked in their favor.
danjo007 said:spaniards cheat & spaniards defend spaniards.