Dating of the Contador ban: why 5th Aug 2012 to finish?

[Armchair Cyclist]

Apologies: I don't doubt that this is dealt with in the depths of some of the other discussions, but it will be fairly intractable among many pages of related discussion.

Could someone please explain the dating of the ban. If his results from the beginning of the 2010 TdF are retrospectively annulled, that would suggest that 2 years finishes on 3 July 2012. 2 years from the date of failed test would finish on 21 July this year. 2 years from announcement of result would bring us to end of September, not early August. Any ban ending after July this year essentially involves a double punishment: 2 year ban plus cancellation of a result prior to that two year period.

I see some mention of 2 years starting 25 January 2011: what is the significance of that date? How could he have served 5 months and 19 days of a provisional suspension between 30 September and 25 January (less than 4 months)?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Apologies: I don't doubt that this is dealt with in the depths of some of the other discussions, but it will be fairly intractable among many pages of related discussion.

Could someone please explain the dating of the ban. If his results from the beginning of the 2010 TdF are retrospectively annulled, that would suggest that 2 years finishes on 3 July 2012. 2 years from the date of failed test would finish on 21 July this year. 2 years from announcement of result would bring us to end of September, not early August. Any ban ending after July this year essentially involves a double punishment: 2 year ban plus cancellation of a result prior to that two year period.

I see some mention of 2 years starting 25 January 2011: what is the significance of that date? How could he have served 5 months and 19 days of a provisional suspension between 30 September and 25 January (less than 4 months)?

Ok - as he tested positive during the Tour 2010 he loses that result.

Contador was first notified of his AAF on the 24th of August - he offically accepted it on the 26th August and was suspended from this date.
This ended in February 2011, when he was cleared by RFEC - so he had clocked up 5 months and 19 days.

In todays decision CAS decided to run jis suspension from the date he first received a decision from RFEC on 25th January 2011. So 2 years from then minus the 5 months and 19 days means August 2012.

 

[El Pistolero]

Because TAS is afraid he'll appeal the verdict to higher courts if he isn't allowed to win the Vuelta. And we all know what a real court would have done.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Ok - as he tested positive during the Tour 2010 he loses that result.

Contador was first notified of his AAF on the 24th of August - he offically accepted it on the 26th August and was suspended from this date.
This ended in February 2011, when he was cleared by RFEC - so he had clocked up 5 months and 19 days.

In todays decision CAS decided to run jis suspension from the date he first received a decision from RFEC on 25th January 2011. So 2 years from then minus the 5 months and 19 days means August 2012.

Thanks for that. However, I'm still confused, as the period from 25th January to 14th February is within the 2 years starting 25 Jan (obviously), and yet is being deducted from the period beginning 25 January.

How can that make sense?

He will have been under a suspension, one way or the other, from 26 August 2010 to 5 August 2012. By no-one's definition is that 2 years.

 

[MacRoadie]

He will have been under a suspension, one way or the other, from 26 August 2010 to 5 August 2012. By no-one's definition is that 2 years.

By my definition, that makes one year, eleven months, and 10 days (well, eleven days since this is a leap year).

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

By my definition, that makes one year, eleven months, and 10 days (well, eleven days since this is a leap year).

Precisely: he is getting double credit for the period of RFEC dither. Will the teams of other Vuelta hopefuls draw official attention to this?

 

[Merckx index]

Thanks for that. However, I'm still confused, as the period from 25th January to 14th February is within the 2 years starting 25 Jan (obviously), and yet is being deducted from the period beginning 25 January.

How can that make sense?

He will have been under a suspension, one way or the other, from 26 August 2010 to 5 August 2012. By no-one's definition is that 2 years.

Yes, I have wondered about this, too. Funny math going on here. If the RFEC decision is moved up to Jan. 25, then he should have tolled less than 5 months, 19 days.

The only way I can see this decision being rationalized is if the sample actually tested positive Aug. 5 2010, and the two year ban begins then, even if Bert had not been notified then. They might justify this by saying even if he didn't know he was positive then, he wasn't actually racing. But it's a very weak argument, and I'm quite sure doesn't accord with the rules.

The cynical view--that this decision was made so he could ride the Vuelta--certainly looks like the most likely one, though in every other respect this decision has showed no favoritism to Bert at all.

However, here's an interpretation of the ban that would fit everything else about this case: Bert is allowed to start riding on Aug 5 this year, but his results don't count until Aug 26. How about that?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes, I have wondered about this, too. Funny math going on here. If the RFEC decision is moved up to Jan. 25, then he should have tolled less than 5 months, 19 days.

The only way I can see this decision being rationalized is if the sample actually tested positive Aug. 5 2010, and the two year ban begins then, even if Bert had not been notified then. They might justify this by saying even if he didn't know he was positive then, he wasn't actually racing. But it's a very weak argument, and I'm quite sure doesn't accord with the rules.

The cynical view--that this decision was made so he could ride the Vuelta--certainly looks like the most likely one, though in every other respect this decision has showed no favoritism to Bert at all.

However, here's an interpretation of the ban that would fit everything else about this case: Bert is allowed to start riding on Aug 5 this year, but his results don't count until Aug 26. How about that?

CAS actually state it is in the interests of "fairness" to the rider as they have some discretion if there have been delays in the case.

510 .......
For reasons of fairness the Panel has decided above to start the Athletes ineligibility period at a much earlier date than what would in principle apply. .....

 

[Merckx index]

CAS actually state it is in the interests of "fairness" to the rider as they have some discretion if there have been delays in the case.

Fairness would apply if the ban were prospective, that is, if Bert were allowed to keep his 2011 results, and received two years less time served from the date of the CAS hearing. In that case, delays would have a major impact on when he was allowed to return. In fact, that is probably a major reason why CAS decided against a prospective ban, as discussed on another thread here. Delays in the hearing could have prevented Bert from riding one, two or all three GTs in 2013, when he might have ridden them if the hearing had occurred sooner.

But in the case of a retrospective ban, which is what Bert largely got, the delays are irrelevant. If you give the rider two years from the date of being informed of the positive, they delays don’t matter at all, unless the hearing is not concluded until after the two year period, which was not the case here.

Two years is two years. If the decision had been announced in December, or even last August (following a hearing originally scheduled for late June), a retrospective ban would still have him losing all 2011 results and not riding until August 2012.

Sorry, but this decision has not yet been rationalized by the panel. I think overall they did a pretty good job, but the less than two years, along with the very weak case for a contaminated supplement and the claimed 1 ug/ml CB in blood, are problems with their decision that demand explanation.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

CAS actually state it is in the interests of "fairness" to the rider as they have some discretion if there have been delays in the case.

But surely the delays have been to the rider's advantage: he has had race practice throughout last year, and in San Luis this; he has had a year's income/profile/promotional opportunities. If the RFEC's period of vacillation had been 3 months, rather than 20 days, would he have had 1 year, nine months to serve?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fairness would apply if the ban were prospective, that is, if Bert were allowed to keep his 2011 results, and received two years less time served from the date of the CAS hearing. In that case, delays would have a major impact on when he was allowed to return. In fact, that is probably a major reason why CAS decided against a prospective ban, as discussed on another thread here. Delays in the hearing could have prevented Bert from riding one, two or all three GTs in 2013, when he might have ridden them if the hearing had occurred sooner.

But in the case of a retrospective ban, which is what Bert largely got, the delays are irrelevant. If you give the rider two years from the date of being informed of the positive, they delays don’t matter at all, unless the hearing is not concluded until after the two year period, which was not the case here.

Two years is two years. If the decision had been announced in December, or even last August (following a hearing originally scheduled for late June), a retrospective ban would still have him losing all 2011 results and not riding until August 2012.

Sorry, but this decision has not yet been rationalized by the panel. I think overall they did a pretty good job, but the less than two years, along with the very weak case for a contaminated supplement and the claimed 1 ug/ml CB in blood, are problems with their decision that demand explanation.

While I agree generally that some of the decisions of the panel are rather strange the rationale was clearly explained in the decision: (whether you agree or disagree with it is a separate matter)

497 In that relation, the Panel notes that the Appellants did not respond to the request of the CNCCD of the RFEC to file an additional submission in order to rebut the reports presented by the Athlete in the first instance. Because the Appellants refrained from explaining their positions in more detail despite such request, the CNCCD of the RFEC was unable to make a decision with the benefit of the entire picture of the Appellants' allegations and evidence that was subsequently presented to this Panel: whereas it is possible that with a fuller picture the CNCCD of the RFEC might have decided the case more rapidly and differently, which in turn might have effected the occurrence of an appeal to the CAS.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But surely the delays have been to the rider's advantage: he has had race practice throughout last year, and in San Luis this; he has had a year's income/profile/promotional opportunities. If the RFEC's period of vacillation had been 3 months, rather than 20 days, would he have had 1 year, nine months to serve?

I am not justifying the CAS panels decision, I would agree with your view - I am merely explaining how they came to their decision.