Italian rider Colo clenbuterol sentence...?!

[Aguirre]

I don't buy this and neither will CAS. If what you say is true, then Central American and Mexican athletes would be testing positive for Clenbuterol all the time.

We don't see that.

but considering only 4 labs in the world are able to detect such thresholds... you are forgetting this... maybe to eat tainted meat can leave such small traces of clen that not all microscopes are able to see.

Those mini-traces of clen are not even dangerous to the human system, they exist for some hours/days and vanish.

And for your information only the 20% of the meat consumed in basque country (irun) comes from BC, the rest is from other regions of spain and also from abroad: argentina, brasil

 

[Aguirre]

the joke will be Andy Schleck as winner of 2010 Tour de France, we could call him "Pereiro Sio".

funny to see how admistration decides now, the road doesn't decide anymore

 

[HoustonHammer]

But that's when you're coming in an interesting area for big lawyers.

Simple logicial facts:

- Contador tested positive on the rest day for Clen
- Contador was clean the day before.
- The level of Clen was too small to inject him self with
- There are only 2 explanations on how the Clen got in his body:
- He ate contaminated meat.
- He blood doped.
- He didn't test positive for the blood doping test.
- WADA is not going to ban Conti for blood doping.
- That means they can't claim Clen get in his body through blood transfusion.
- One possibility remains if they don't take him down for blood doping.
- Contador ate contaminated meat according to whatever instance decides.
- Gets a one year ban dating back from the positive test.
- Contador wins the Giro di Lombardia in 2011.

I disagree on one critical point: just because they won't use the plasticizer finding to go after him over blood doping DOES NOT mean they won't consider it when hearing his explanation of how the Clen got into his sample. They don't need to claim anything. It's up to AC to prove that the Clen got into the sample through NO fault or negligence of his own. I think the standard used to judge his argument under the Code is 'balance of probability'; the fact of the plasticizer will make it extremely difficult to meet that standard.

His other problem, which is much bigger, is that if he can prove he had no fault, it only allows him to avoid a ban. The way that UCI rules are written, if Clen (or any other prohibited substance) is found in a sample taken during the event, the athlete is disqualified from that event. Period. Which means that in the very best case, the meat defense can help him avoid a ban, but not disqualification of his 2010 TdF win.

 

[El Pistolero]

I disagree on one critical point: just because they won't use the plasticizer finding to go after him over blood doping DOES NOT mean they won't consider it when hearing his explanation of how the Clen got into his sample. They don't need to claim anything. It's up to AC to prove that the Clen got into the sample through NO fault or negligence of his own. I think the standard used to judge his argument under the Code is 'balance of probability'; the fact of the plasticizer will make it extremely difficult to meet that standard.

His other problem, which is much bigger, is that if he can prove he had no fault, it only allows him to avoid a ban. The way that UCI rules are written, if Clen (or any other prohibited substance) is found in a sample taken during the event, the athlete is disqualified from that event. Period. Which means that in the very best case, the meat defense can help him avoid a ban, but not disqualification of his 2010 TdF win.

If he gets a ban dating back from his positive then he did not finish the Tour this year.

And Contador can take this high, very high. And in these high courts having a suspicion of something is not enough to make you guilty.

 

[OneRaceWonder]

Yes but the difference is that official sources in Mexico put the level of contamination at 18%. It's a recognised problem in Central America but hasn't been in Spain for about 15 years.

In any event it sets a precedent for Contador's ban to be measured against. Any shorter than 1 year would be a joke.

Yup, this is actually good news for us who fear that the doper will avoid a ban!

 

[DAOTEC]

Iranian tennis player banned for 2 years for clenbuterol

Published: 09:50 a.m., Monday, October 11, 2010

LONDON (AP) — An Iranian Davis Cup tennis player has been suspended for two years after testing positive for the banned drug clenbuterol. [http://ctpost.com]


Now that is strange ? and the Chinese from Shack hasn't even gotten a ban !
.

 

[HoustonHammer]

If he gets a ban dating back from his positive then he did not finish the Tour this year.

And Contador can take this high, very high. And in these high courts having a suspicion of something is not enough to make you guilty.

The problem is, it's not a suspicion. The athlete had a non-threshold prohibited substance in his system, as certified by an accredited lab against both his A and B samples.

 

[Night Rider]

In any event it sets a precedent for Contador's ban to be measured against. Any shorter than 1 year would be a joke.

You are right in one respect, it does set a precedent. Normally a rider receives a two year ban so if this ban goes unappealed by the UCI then it opens the door for any federation to also apply lessor sentences. Basically CONI have accepted the contamination defence as a mitigating factor.

From there is it reasonable to argue as the levels were four times lower that the ban should be four times less i.e. three months. Is it then reasonable to say a three month ban is ridiculous for a contamination case. Sound arguments that lawyers will have a field day with.

It will be interesting.

 

[ultimobici]

You are right in one respect, it does set a precedent. Normally a rider receives a two year ban so if this ban goes unappealed by the UCI then it opens the door for any federation to also apply lessor sentences. Basically CONI have accepted the contamination defence as a mitigating factor.

From there is it reasonable to argue as the levels were four times lower that the ban should be four times less i.e. three months. Is it then reasonable to say a three month ban is ridiculous for a contamination case. Sound arguments that lawyers will have a field day with.

It will be interesting.

I don't think it'll be quite that simple for Contador's lawyers to argue that due to his eating meat in Europe as opposed to Mexico. The level of contaminated meat is much higher there which is why CONI allowed his argument of mitigation.

 

[Merckx index]

From there is it reasonable to argue as the levels were four times lower that the ban should be four times less i.e. three months. Is it then reasonable to say a three month ban is ridiculous for a contamination case. Sound arguments that lawyers will have a field day with.

I don't think even a lawyer could make that argument. If it's from contaminated meat, what difference does it make how much is present?

If Bert is banned for one year, I would bet very heavily on his winning the Vuelta next year. He will have the entire year to focus on that one GT, and possibly some of the competition will not have figured out that they need to use DEHP-free blood bags.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I disagree on one critical point: just because they won't use the plasticizer finding to go after him over blood doping DOES NOT mean they won't consider it when hearing his explanation of how the Clen got into his sample. They don't need to claim anything. It's up to AC to prove that the Clen got into the sample through NO fault or negligence of his own. I think the standard used to judge his argument under the Code is 'balance of probability'; the fact of the plasticizer will make it extremely difficult to meet that standard.

His other problem, which is much bigger, is that if he can prove he had no fault, it only allows him to avoid a ban. The way that UCI rules are written, if Clen (or any other prohibited substance) is found in a sample taken during the event, the athlete is disqualified from that event. Period. Which means that in the very best case, the meat defense can help him avoid a ban, but not disqualification of his 2010 TdF win.

Yep.

He has already tested posative. It is up to him to prove that he was NOT at fault, that the ONLY reasonable explanation is contanimated food. It will be hard to prove when the blood doping explanation is entirely reasonable and possible and there is some evidence pointing towards that conclusion even if it is not conclusive on its own.

I really cant see how they can get away from banning him. (And yes, his TdF title has to be taken away ... there isnt any room for discretion there)

 

[Night Rider]

I don't think it'll be quite that simple for Contador's lawyers to argue that due to his eating meat in Europe as opposed to Mexico. The level of contaminated meat is much higher there which is why CONI allowed his argument of mitigation.

No, he would only need to prove contamination exists in Spain at a level that it’s not out of the ordinary to prove you could get contaminated. All that means is it’s an easier job to prove that in South America than it is in Spain. Let’s for argument say it’s a 20% instance in South America and only a 5% instance in Spain, that’s a 5/100 chance of being contaminated in some way by eating meat. I don’t want to pluck numbers out of the sky but I would say a friendly Spanish Cycling Authority is going to accept that defence on levels lower than that.

I don't think even a lawyer could make that argument. If it's from contaminated meat, what difference does it make how much is present?

Level of offending, punishment must fit the crime. If the crime is less (lower levels) then it’s reasonable that the penalty is lower.

Compare it to say an assault case, if the victim got a black eye from an assault the offender may get away with a fine and a suspended sentence of some sort. If the victim got knocked unconscious and cracked his skull the penalty for the offender will be much higher.

 

[HoustonHammer]

No, he would only need to prove contamination exists in Spain at a level that it’s not out of the ordinary to prove you could get contaminated. All that means is it’s an easier job to prove that in South America than it is in Spain. Let’s for argument say it’s a 20% instance in South America and only a 5% instance in Spain, that’s a 5/100 chance of being contaminated in some way by eating meat. I don’t want to pluck numbers out of the sky but I would say a friendly Spanish Cycling Authority is going to accept that defence on levels lower than that.



Level of offending, punishment must fit the crime. If the crime is less (lower levels) then it’s reasonable that the penalty is lower.

Compare it to say an assault case, if the victim got a black eye from an assault the offender may get away with a fine and a suspended sentence of some sort. If the victim got knocked unconscious and cracked his skull the penalty for the offender will be much higher.

These are nice arguments, and maybe in a perfect world, they would be effective. But I don't think they recognize the facts here.

To get a reduced penalty, the rules (both UCI and WADC) say that the rider must prove, to a 'balance of probability' standard, that the prohibited substance entered his body by no fault of his own. What this means, is that he has to convince the anti-doping authority that it was more probable than not that his story is correct; i.e. that eating Spanish beef creates a greater than 50% chance of Clen contamination. Others on this site have quoted studies that measured the prevalence of Clen in Spanish beef, and it was far, far below 1%. Even if the rate were 5%, it would be far too low to support an argument meeting a balance of probability standard. (Colo's case was quite different. In Mexico, studies estimate that the contamination rate actually is close to half). And while I certainly agree that RFEC will go easy on him, WADA and CAS will not, and they won't sit by if RFEC tries a wrist slap.

The other issue is that while the rules definitely agree that the punishment must fit the crime, they clearly and unequivocally define the penalty for AC's crime as a 2 year ban. This can be reduced to 1 year if the he can prove (on balance of probability) 'no fault or negligence'.

I agree it seems like very rough justice for such a low level of a drug that really has minimal performance benefits. And maybe WADA should think about modifying that rule. But until the rule is changed, it would be terrible for the authorities to not enforce it as written.

 

[Paco_P]

There does not seem to be any evidence of people getting clenbuterol poisoning by eating anything over than parts of the meat like LIVER. I'm not aware of any evidence of anyone getting poisoned by eating tenderloin.

 

[warmfuzzies]

Another difference which you so easily forgot is that Colo's levels of Clen were 4 times higher then Conti.

You are a Contador fan, I get it. But how do you ignore the negative implications this precedent sets for Contador? Cyclist tests clen-pos, says it was accidental, cycling ruling body agrees with him, cyclist still gets 1-year ban plus revoked palmares.

Clen concentration appears 100% irrelevant given the outcome.

 

[Cloxxki]

If blood doping is found to have been most likely, we're looking at a lifetime ban, 2 seperate violations. First to take clen, then to use a banned method.
Ban the guy for life I say, they should give off the signal the UCI claims to want to send.

 

[mycenos]

If blood doping is found to have been most likely, we're looking at a lifetime ban, 2 seperate violations. First to take clen, then to use a banned method.
Ban the guy for life I say, they should give off the signal the UCI claims to want to send.

Doesn't work that way. The second violation has to occur after the rider has been notified of the first violation. Otherwise, at most multiple violations considered together can be considered aggravating circumstances and result in bans up to 4 years--but I don't see that happening here. The plasticiser test isn't validated yet, so it can't be used to prove a separate violation, just as supporting evidence for the first.

So, 2 years at maximum.

 

[Mich78BEL]

i think he will get the same sentence (one year + probably loss of Tourdf win) though i think Wada might appeal to get a maximum sentence