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

[BotanyBay]

I don't understand this at all. Is this the standard procedure to pass the case to the riders nationality? Then does it come back to the UCI for sentencing?
What is the procedure for this?

The UCI's job was to implement testing according to WADA protocols, using a WADA certified lab. Then, if a positive result is returned, they're supposed to refer the case to the rider's national governing body for adjudication. The UCI did the first part as it was supposed to, but "sat" on the second part for over two months (almost 3).

 

[Mambo95]

Damn.. I keep forgetting that a positive control is no longer evidence of doping.

So you don't think a man has the right to defend himself against charges? No hearing, just convict him?

Look, I don't believe his excuses, but there's a right and proper approach to these things. Unless you're Idi Amin or Pol Pot.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Define positive. I'm playing devils advocate here, it is every riders right to challenge the validity of a positive test. Just because person A blindly accepts that the laboratory must be correct it doesn't mean the rider has to. Therefore what one person says is a positive might not actually legally be so.

Contador doesn't say the lab result is wrong. He is merely claiming the SOURCE of the clenbuterol is not intentional. How in the heck is he going to prove it was from a "bad cut of meat?"

Contador is a punk.

 

[BotanyBay]

So you don't think a man has the right to defend himself against charges? No hearing, just convict him?

Look, I don't believe his excuses, but there's a right and proper approach to these things. Unless you're Idi Amin or Pol Pot.

Right now we're ****ed at the UCI for fast-tracking (throwing under the bus) riders who do not have Contador's high profile, yet sitting on his case for three months. They refused to foward the case (which was their duty).

 

[Mambo95]

Right now we're ****ed at the UCI for fast-tracking (throwing under the bus) riders who do not have Contador's high profile

Like who? These proceedings always take ages. It took them four months to ban Thomas Frei, and he confessed to everything.

The only difference here is that, for once, the story wasn't leaked to the press (no-one at the Cologne lab on L'Equipe's pay-roll). Plus Contador can sue them for millions if they don't get it right.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Delete post

 

[Anonymous]

Did what? Seems to me that as usual theyve passed the buck.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

This one too.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, photos won't post today!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hmmm, it remains to be seen whether the RFEC have the cojones to follow through with the disciplinary process. I have my doubts that they will find Bertie guilty.

It would seem though that the UCI have been convinced by the labs/WADA that the case would result in a guilty verdict being returned at CAS should the UCI appeal a not guilty/no case verdict in Spain.

Interesting times ahead. RFEC to return a verdict before the end of the year if I understand correctly.

I believe RFEC will.
Ultimatley the UCI are doing what they should have done when the got the positive B sample.

I think the delay since then was to see what WADA would tolerate regarding a sanction. The UCI will back up RFEC but WADA could appeal if they thought a sentance was too lenient - so the UCI have been checking the temperature of WADA.
I expect 9 months to 1 year ban & loss of the 2010 TdF.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Contador doesn't say the lab result is wrong. He is merely claiming the SOURCE of the clenbuterol is not intentional. How in the heck is he going to prove it was from a "bad cut of meat?"

Photographic evidence?

[/IMG]

 

[Finbouy]

Why is it I believe Bert? Is it because he has a nice smile or perhaps an endearing nature? I've no idea, but to me, he seems honest. Honest as in I think he's been erm, clean, so too most of the bunch recently.
As for "any trace" of Clen' and you're banned, then if there is a trace then surely according to "da law" it's a ban situation.. as bad as that seems it ought to be enforced. If it doesn't happen then you may as well open the doors and let Dr Mich back in.
But for the tinyest amount, trace amount at that, less than more decimal points that I could typo, then why not put a min/max trace limit on it? As it seems this stuff is all around, most of us meat eaters must have, at some time, consumed it, then raced perhaps?? A trace is a ban, would you own up? Would you put your career down the pipehole if you thought for one moment you weren't erm, clean? Would ya's? Own up, who's embelished their CV in the past?
Fekin difficult one that.
As for handing it back to the riders governing body to deal with seams like a cop out to me, what does the UCI do? just gather data? I could do that.

 

[avanti]

In my opinion no information what-so-ever should be released or leaked until the rider is finally sanctioned.

 

[Anonymous]

I read this as the spaniards are going to do nothing
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6...dings-be-opened-against-Alberto-Contador.aspx

 

[Ferminal]

Well he's going to have to stay "provisionally suspended" until the hearing, so things should happen rather quickly now.

 

[ferryman]

I believe RFEC will.
Ultimatley the UCI are doing what they should have done when the got the positive B sample.

I think the delay since then was to see what WADA would tolerate regarding a sanction. The UCI will back up RFEC but WADA could appeal if they thought a sentance was too lenient - so the UCI have been checking the temperature of WADA.
I expect 9 months to 1 year ban & loss of the 2010 TdF.

Agreed, UCI will back up RFEC but I bet it will be a 9 month ban, backdated, and no loss of TDF i.e a slap on the wrist from RFEC (and quite rightly so given the circumstances of the positive - no plasticers before anyone goes off on one). Whether WADA accept that outcome is the kicker and I suspect the answer to that is no, given that their lab has been involved thus far in the recommendation to the UCI.

Sooo, in short a CAS case and fook knows when that will be. I really don't want to see Bertie racing next year with any of this still not resolved.

But I do want to see Bertie racing next year

 

[theswordsman]

The dates on things and earlier statements by the UCI have the process so far muddled in my mind. In WADA's Independent Observer Report of the UCI at the Tour de France, it said:

For those samples sent to the Lausanne Laboratory, the UCI requested expedited analysis of the negative results no later than 72 hours from the time samples were received by the laboratory. There were no such arrangements suggested or made with the Cologne Laboratory. In the absence of any arrangements, it was observed that the Cologne Laboratory reported the results within the ten working days as specified in the International Standard for Laboratories

Page 32
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...endent-Observer/WADA_IO_Report_TDF2010_EN.pdf

I understand that a lot of Europe shuts down for a couple of weeks in August, but given the 72 hour agreement with Lausanne, and the idea that a small number of samples were going to Cologne for super-testing, how does it take more than a month for the notification of a positive as stated in the UCI press release?

On 23 August 2010, the Cologne laboratory sent the UCI an analysis report indicating an abnormal result (presence of clenbuterol) in a urine sample taken from the Spanish rider during a test carried out on 21 July, the second rest day of the 2010 Tour de France. The laboratory simultaneously sent this information to WADA.

http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=32420

If the samples had been handled normally with the 72 hour instruction, the results would have been known by the end of the race, and Contador would have had a chance to gather evidence to support his defense.

The current UCI statement also says that Contador asked for the B sample to be tested when notified of the positive A test. But that goes against what the UCI said originally:

In view of this very small concentration and in consultation with WADA, the UCI immediately had the proper results management proceedings conducted including the analysis of the B sample that confirmed the first result," the statement said. "The rider, who had already put an end to his cycling season before the result was known, was nevertheless formally and provisionally suspended as is prescribed by the World Anti-Doping Code."

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...r-scientific-investigation.aspx#ixzz14k0Fcubx

It doesn't say that the rider requested the B Sample test - it implies it was action taken by the UCI.

I don't know if Contador is guilty or innocent, but I know the UCI is screwed up and can't be trusted. I hate doping, but at this point in time I think every hit the UCI and Biological Passport take is good for the sport. I'm glad they didn't get Vino's money. I hope Pellizotti gets some of theirs. And I hope the Passport system implodes so that testing needs to be done by an external agency with no vested interest in the riders or the image of the sport.

 

[hfer07]

I don't know if Contador is guilty or innocent, but I know the UCI is screwed up and can't be trusted. I hate doping, but at this point in time I think every hit the UCI and Biological Passport take is good for the sport. I'm glad they didn't get Vino's money. I hope Pellizotti gets some of theirs. And I hope the Passport system implodes so that testing needs to be done by an external agency with no vested interest in the riders or the image of the sport.

Pat has just found the best excuse to wash away any guilt from him & UCI on whatever outcome AC's case is determined by the RFEC-and that by itself stinks to the highest level!
AC at this point is cornered, well knowing that if he's absolved by his federation from the case, WADA & UCI are already prepared to fight back. I foresee this case to be dragged in courts for quite some time ala Val-piti, just have him penalized at the end. very sad indeed

 

[flicker]

This is terrible for cycling. If Fran had sat Alberto out for the season as I had suggested many times this never would have happened.
Al had a contract to fulfill with Vino, why oh why not just fein illness. Astana and Vino are major bad news.
Fran Contador sucks no ifs ands or buts. As a manager Fran should have protected his brother from doping and Astana. Shady, shady, shady.
You notice Armstrong dissing Alberto, telling.

 

[flicker]

My 10 and 11 year old sons could have come up with a better excuse than "beef" poisoning, severely weak Alberto!

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It doesn't say that the rider requested the B Sample test - it implies it was action taken by the UCI.

That's what usually happens. It's standard procedure for the B sample to be tested, unless the rider decides to admit to doping after the A sample. It's not really the riders who "request" it.

The rider or their representative has a right to be present when the B sample is tested. That's how lab staff find out who has tested positive and tell the press.

 

[flicker]

This is terrible for cycling. If Fran had sat Alberto out for the season as I had suggested many times this never would have happened.
Al had a contract to fulfill with Vino, why oh why not just fein illness. Astana and Vino are major bad news.
Fran Contador sucks no ifs ands or buts. As a manager Fran should have protected his brother from doping and Astana. Shady, shady, shady.
You notice Armstrong dissing Alberto, telling.

Vino the Suge Knight of cycling. At least Contador wasn't riding in a lac with Vino.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

It seems to be clear that use of Clenbuterol in livestock destined for human consumption has been banned for some time. It also appears, from the Canaries case, that some farmers ignore this ruling.

What are the odds that the mysterious friend who brought the meat across the border reveals himself, followed by the butcher where he bought it, and the butcher will miraculously remember exactly which cut of meat, from which farm, this particular customer bought 4 months ago. The farmer will then hold his hands up, pay his fine (and yet, somehow, his bank balance increases), and retire from farming within a few months.


Presumably Alberto eats with his teammates: were no other Astana riders tested on the same day, or those following?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

What are the odds that the mysterious friend who brought the meat across the border reveals himself, followed by the butcher where he bought it, and the butcher will miraculously remember exactly which cut of meat, from which farm, this particular customer bought 4 months ago. The farmer will then hold his hands up, pay his fine (and yet, somehow, his bank balance increases), and retire from farming within a few months.

Presumably Alberto eats with his teammates: were no other Astana riders tested on the same day, or those following?

Vino was the only other Astana rider tested at that time and apparently he had dinner earlier than everyone else. What are the odds...

 

[Siriuscat]

Said this already, RFEC and probably CAS will realise that technically and legally WADA and the UCI may not have a leg to stand on. ONLY the Cologne lab have the ability to test for Clenbuterol at those levels, no other lab has, were ALL tour blood/Urine samples tested at Cologne?? Has EVERY single UCI sanction Blood/Urine sample been tested at the same lab all year??

At best a three month slap on the wrist, at worst he'll get off on a technicality (there are probably dozens to chose from...)

 

[Frosty]

That is one thing that i have wondered. WADA's report says that only 10 target test samples were sent to Cologne - were non-targetted tests also sent, ie ones that would have been done anyway such as the stage winner and overall leader? The top of page 32 simply says that a number of tests were sent on 3 occasions so no official number given there. If there were only 10 samples then that raises a few questions.

EDIT: I suppose Contador's tests would have counted as standard ones rather than target-test unless there was something that would have made them test anyway.