Could Bert be guilty of aggravating circumstances?

[roundabout]

What's not his fault?

Get your point across without weaseling behind the "proven contamination story" so that it can be possible to have a discussion.

Oh, and don't forget to mention that the best case scenario for Contador is a 10% likelihood of contamination.

Thank you.

 

[Cloxxki]

This looks to call for a life time ban

If
A- oral meat contamination is ruled out and
and
B- oral consumption during tour itself ruled out, a needle consumption or blood transfusion ruled in...

...then we have more than one offence, on more than one date. A life time ban the only possible demand.

 

[GJB123]

What's not his fault?

Get your point across without weaseling behind the "proven contamination story" so that it can be possible to have a discussion.

Oh, and don't forget to mention that the best case scenario for Contador is a 10% likelihood of contamination.

Thank you.

First of all, the discussion here is on the legal point of aggravating circumstances. If you want to discuss the other points of this case go the Contador acquitted-thread. So no, I am not gonna discuss any o the other issues with you or anyone else in this thread, not in the least because it will deteriorate into the same mud-slinging as in said thread. So count me out for that.

As to you second question, I refer to the bolded part in your previous comment. How can it be AC's fault that in the end nobody asked him to provide his DNA? But to be fair, that is also not the maoin point of this thread so let's just forget about that.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

If
A- oral meat contamination is ruled out and
and
B- oral consumption during tour itself ruled out, a needle consumption or blood transfusion ruled in...

...then we have more than one offence, on more than one date. A life time ban the only possible demand.

Another one who doesn't quite grasp it. For AC's defense to succeed he needs to establish that the other 3 possibilities are less likely. That can help him to show that it was neither his fault or negligence.

If he doesn't succeed it leaves blood transfusion as even likely, more likely or most likely scenario but that in all likelihood in itself will not meet the burden of proof for WADA or UCI to either say that there are aggravating circumstances or even worse two offences. For WADA or UCI likelihood will not suffice they need actual proof of blood doping if they are to prosecute AC for blood doping. So don't get your hopes op on this one.

Regards
GJ

 

[Escarabajo]

If UCI and/or WADA appeal, and Bert ultimately loses his case, is it possible he could be given a longer than normal suspension because of aggravating circumstances?

The rationale is simple. If he didn’t get the CB from contaminated meat, he must have gotten it from transfusion. So he doped twice: first taking the CB, then second, transfusing blood. As I read the WADA rules, two doping violations during the timeframe covered by a single case can be considered a single violation with aggravating circumstances. Here are the relevant sections of the WADA code:

...

Very interesting point of view. But as GJ already pointed out, it looks like Bertie can be banned only for one offense since there is not definitive test for the blood transfusion outside of the Biopassport.

Now how clean is his Biopassport? CAS experts might have a different opinion than the UCI. Who knows.