King Boonen said:
Have you all seen that the UCI gave Sammy Sanchez a 2 year doping ban and at the same time said that they accept Sanchez's explanation that the samples were contaminated. Um if they were contaminated why is he getting a ban?
Contaminated supplement, not sample, that's very different. I'm guessing they have accepted that this was most likely which is why it's only 2 years.
I don't understand that, if the anti doping body accepts the contaminated supplement motive, they still give a 2 year suspension. The fault should be on the makers of the supplement, not on the rider. For sure they don't expect the riders to test each box of supplementation products that they take to see if it's contaminated with performance enhancing substances.
Losing all results would be the right measure to take. After all, he was racing with things that aren't allowed. But being suspended from racing because of something that isn't the riders fault, but the manufacturer's, is a bit too much for me.
This, I repeat, if it's found without doubt that the cause of the positive is a contaminated supplement.
Based on the UCI statement and reading between the lines I think that they have accepted that this is the most likely cause, hence only 2 years and not 4 years, but Sanchez failed to prove it was definitely the cause, which could be argued as no ban.
The liability rests with the rider (for good reasons) but it does result in situations like this (if we believe the claim) and the Contador case. It's not an easy thing to prove. Even if you save an amount of each supplement you take, there is no chain of custody for everything you take/eat. Just because you have a contaminated supplement in your possession doesn't prove that 1) this was the cause of your failed test and 2) the supplement was contaminated before you got it.
Athletes aren't forced to take supplements, it's a known risk and you need to weigh it up. As Mayomaniac points out, there is some information available to athletes to help, but it isn't perfect.