Holy Cr*p, the UCI did it (Contador)

[Dr. Maserati]

This is my best punt now that Contador's team have seen the UCI/WADA brief and still seem optimistic:

There will be an adverse finding from the Spanish Fed (as A&B postive & UCI/WADA looking on), but only a 6-9 month suspension (starting August when informed of positive test) in view of level so low as to only be consistent with contamination. This will not be appealed on basis of "scientific evidence" coming from WADA in the first place, and a delicate political balance between all parties.

Allows UCI/ WADA/ Spanish to see "justice" done, Contador keeps TdF win (ASO & UCI can't afford any other outcome) and gets Contador back for Paris-Nice or at least the Dauphine and able to claim vindication.

And who really knows, as the contamination story could even be true!? I wouldn't rely on testing of random beef samples any more than I would on out-of-competition drug testing of Jamaican sprinters (when there's no WADA lab in Kingston...). Abuse of pharmaceuticals in the livestock industries is systematic, & testing of beef cattle is probably not.

WRT plasticisers in blood - apart from all the ethical considerations of using a non-validated test then leaking the results - if that was true you would think there would be a whole lot more of the TdF riders who would/should be concerned - even if they were going to claim they just took a "rehydration drip" or similar. That's unless Contador was the only one tested, which would be pretty extreme - ie take the Tour leader's samples, and only the Tour leader's, and subject them to every unvalidated and uber-sensitive test going.

Even the EPO tests of Lance's '99 TdF samples at least used a test that had been validated, even if Lance didn't give his permission , and even though the French lab didn't know they were his samples until the L'Equipe journalist lifted the sample numbers from the UCI...

BTW when is everybody going to remember that Lance's "steroid cream" script was post-dated? The prescription was only produced days after ASO & UCI informed Postal of the positive test and was not covered by a TUE certificate at the time of the test. So yes, LANCE DID HAVE A POSITIVE TEST FOR A BANNED PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCE. It's just that if your Lance, or his entourage, you can change reality by repeating denials & alternative versions of the truth.

But I digress....

Regards

Bikelife
Brisbane

To the highlighted - if Contador is hit with any ban of any length then he is viewed as guilty of an Anti-doping violation and therefore disqualified from the competition that he tested positive in,
ie he does not get to win the Tour.

 

[El Pistolero]

To the highlighted - if Contador is hit with any ban of any length then he is viewed as guilty of an Anti-doping violation and therefore disqualified from the competition that he tested positive in,
ie he does not get to win the Tour.

Isn't Di Luca still the official winner of the points classification in the Giro though?

 

[TubularBills]

the point was that the evidence that resulted in a complete exoneration was based on two test methods that wada normally does not consider credible nor verifiable and that wada apparently is forgoing it's right to challenge the evidence (or by consequence the credibility of the tests it has never accredited).

point taken, thanks for the clarification.

 

[charlieyates]

McQuaid!! Seriously, though, it's getting pretty ridiculous now, what with the potential for us not knowing who "won" the last two tours until later this year. An idea, worse for riders and teams, but better (I think) for the sport (and the fans' interest) is to sideline riders facing sanction until their case is settled. Maybe only above a certain level of race, because it's a harsh penalty, and would hurt incomes, careers, and exposure for sponsors. But certainly at the grand tours. Sheesh! On the other hand... maybe I'm just sayin' that because, well, hats off to Contador, but I thought the Giro would've been more fun to watch without him there. But that's another thread.