Kimmage on Contador

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Barrus said:
first: the others (at least the Spanish part of the team) did eat the meat, only Vino ate fish, Vino was the only other that was tested
Which causes one to wonder. Just imagine if AC's teammates had been tested. Either they show no traces of clen, which is damning to AC's claims, or they too test positive for clen, which would have further confounded the whole investigation.

The authorities would then be faced with having to determine if they were all doped. :eek: Probably just as well that none of them were tested that day (I think :eek:).
 
Scott SoCal said:
"The guy deserves nothing... good riddance to him."

Awesome. Kimmage would be an excellent replacement for McQuaid at UCI. A way forward perhaps.
And what, you're going to award the title to Schleck? How do you know there aren't plasticizers strewn about his stored blood samples?! NONE of the top guys who are doping deserve anything, but until you can definitively ensure beyond a shadow of the doubt that there are actually clean riders, who are you going to award the win to?
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
...

But for me this issue is not about that. It's that AC tested positive for a banned substance. And for reasons I think cattle farmer Runningboy pointed out, coupled with the massive doping problem in the sport, I don't possibly see how this was an accidental ingestion any more than Tyler Hamilton had a chimera and Floyd Landis drank too much whiskey. That by the time it was detected with a hyper sensitive test was a micro amount is not relevant to me, providing the test is scientifically accepted as accurate. The highly likely fact he was one of many dopers is not relevant either in my eyes. He doped, he cheated. Good riddance...
Do you honestly feel satisfied that Contador is going to be banned for a micro-trace-amount of clenbuterol, which he wouldn't even have been actively doping with at the time of the alleged infraction, as opposed to catching him properly doping, either with EPO, transfusions, record of a bank transfer or Western Union to China, etc? The triviality of the clen. is (imo) reflected immediately in the proposed 1-year ban. He wouldn't be facing any ban (imo) if the lab hadn't violated Contador's rights as an athlete (and his human rights?) and leaked confidential information to the German media.

The lab itself should be banned or at least de-certified - as should every lab that is the source for the leaking of confidential rider test data - and the responsible party should face criminal charges for breaches of data protection/privacy laws (if applicable).

Seriously, if you're going to string Contador up for having a speck of clen in his system, then sanction the lab and the lab personnel who violated ethical guidelines and contractual obligations and sporting/anti-doping regulations by leaking the info to the German media in the first place. At least the UCI tried to protect Contador's privacy, which he was entitled to according to anti-doping adjudication due process.

I think strict liability is BS; I think that athletes should have recourse to the Courts; and I now understand that I was used like any other pawn in a must-win case that could have brought down the entire corrupt anti-doping system if the truth on both sides had actually come out, and the ADA had played by the same set of rules and obligations it supposedly exists to ensure that athletes follow... :(

Newsflash: anti-doping agencies, labs, administrators, officials, etc. cheat, too, yet no one holds them accountable - ever. Well, in those rare cases when an athlete is found not guilty of doping because it's shown in glaring relief that the lab screwed up, or the sample was mishandled, or chain of custody broken, the athlete is hardly vindicated as he's then accused of just "getting off" on a "technicality" - as if following the rules is optional for the anti-doping agencies, while it's mandatory only for the athletes.

THAT's a topic I'd like to see discussed/debated in the Clinic. Do the ends really justify the means and isn't there immorality equal to the immorality of doping (if you think it's immoral and not just unethical) when the anti-doping movement and its actors don't follow their rules/guidelines/standards 100%?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
joe_papp said:
Do you honestly feel satisfied that Contador is going to be banned for a micro-trace-amount of clenbuterol, which he wouldn't even have been actively doping with at the time of the alleged infraction, as opposed to catching him properly doping, either with EPO, transfusions, record of a bank transfer or Western Union to China, etc? The triviality of the clen. is (imo) reflected immediately in the proposed 1-year ban. He wouldn't be facing any ban (imo) if the lab hadn't violated Contador's rights as an athlete (and his human rights?) and leaked confidential information to the German media.

The lab itself should be banned or at least de-certified - as should every lab that is the source for the leaking of confidential rider test data - and the responsible party should face criminal charges for breaches of data protection/privacy laws (if applicable).

Seriously, if you're going to string Contador up for having a speck of clen in his system, then sanction the lab and the lab personnel who violated ethical guidelines and contractual obligations and sporting/anti-doping regulations by leaking the info to the German media in the first place. At least the UCI tried to protect Contador's privacy, which he was entitled to according to anti-doping adjudication due process.

I think strict liability is BS; I think that athletes should have recourse to the Courts; and I now understand that I was used like any other pawn in a must-win case that could have brought down the entire corrupt anti-doping system if the truth on both sides had actually come out, and the ADA had played by the same set of rules and obligations it supposedly exists to ensure that athletes follow... :(

Newsflash: anti-doping agencies, labs, administrators, officials, etc. cheat, too, yet no one holds them accountable - ever. Well, in those rare cases when an athlete is found not guilty of doping because it's shown in glaring relief that the lab screwed up, or the sample was mishandled, or chain of custody broken, the athlete is hardly vindicated as he's then accused of just "getting off" on a "technicality" - as if following the rules is optional for the anti-doping agencies, while it's mandatory only for the athletes.

THAT's a topic I'd like to see discussed/debated in the Clinic. Do the ends really justify the means and isn't there immorality equal to the immorality of doping (if you think it's immoral and not just unethical) when the anti-doping movement and its actors don't follow their rules/guidelines/standards 100%?
the short answer is there has to be accountability on both sides. i doubt too many people would disagree with that Joe, But the rules are flagrantly being abused by certain teams and riders with the full assistance of the uci, that a big fish is landed that sometimes the method in announcing the catch can get lost in the furore. but that is something that should be addressed.

in Contador's case, it is likely that his positive might never have come out without it being leaked. why you ask? because they took a completely opposite line with the Chinese radioshack rider and his was announced before his B sample was tested.

what cycling needs is a proper functioning federation before we can expect what you propose discussing in the above post.

a proper federation would protect the riders and the sport for the benefit of all those who abide by the rules not his mafia for the few selected soldiers
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
joe_papp said:
Do you honestly feel satisfied that Contador is going to be banned for a micro-trace-amount of clenbuterol, which he wouldn't even have been actively doping with at the time of the alleged infraction, as opposed to catching him properly doping, either with EPO, transfusions, record of a bank transfer or Western Union to China, etc? The triviality of the clen. is (imo) reflected immediately in the proposed 1-year ban. He wouldn't be facing any ban (imo) if the lab hadn't violated Contador's rights as an athlete (and his human rights?) and leaked confidential information to the German media.

The lab itself should be banned or at least de-certified - as should every lab that is the source for the leaking of confidential rider test data - and the responsible party should face criminal charges for breaches of data protection/privacy laws (if applicable).

Seriously, if you're going to string Contador up for having a speck of clen in his system, then sanction the lab and the lab personnel who violated ethical guidelines and contractual obligations and sporting/anti-doping regulations by leaking the info to the German media in the first place. At least the UCI tried to protect Contador's privacy, which he was entitled to according to anti-doping adjudication due process.

I think strict liability is BS; I think that athletes should have recourse to the Courts; and I now understand that I was used like any other pawn in a must-win case that could have brought down the entire corrupt anti-doping system if the truth on both sides had actually come out, and the ADA had played by the same set of rules and obligations it supposedly exists to ensure that athletes follow... :(

Newsflash: anti-doping agencies, labs, administrators, officials, etc. cheat, too, yet no one holds them accountable - ever. Well, in those rare cases when an athlete is found not guilty of doping because it's shown in glaring relief that the lab screwed up, or the sample was mishandled, or chain of custody broken, the athlete is hardly vindicated as he's then accused of just "getting off" on a "technicality" - as if following the rules is optional for the anti-doping agencies, while it's mandatory only for the athletes.

THAT's a topic I'd like to see discussed/debated in the Clinic. Do the ends really justify the means and isn't there immorality equal to the immorality of doping (if you think it's immoral and not just unethical) when the anti-doping movement and its actors don't follow their rules/guidelines/standards 100%?
Joe according to this 'logic', it's ok to dope with certain products at certain times in the year. So yes, he doped, he deserves his ban. And if it hadn't been leaked, he would still be riding - would you be happy with that? The battle is being lost and one of the reasons for this is the corruption of the governing bodies. The leaking of the results was a good thing because it has shone light on corruption. How can that be a bad thing.......

Riders and their rights - maybe they should clean up their side of the street first before they start criticising the labs....:rolleyes:
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Digger said:
Joe according to this 'logic', it's ok to dope with certain products at certain times in the year. So yes, he doped, he deserves his ban. And if it hadn't been leaked, he would still be riding - would you be happy with that? The battle is being lost and one of the reasons for this is the corruption of the governing bodies. The leaking of the results was a good thing because it has shone light on corruption. How can that be a bad thing.......

Riders and their rights - maybe they should clean up their side of the street first before they start criticising the labs....:rolleyes:
+1, i could not come close to saying this as well as you have Digger
Thanks
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
joe_papp said:
Do you honestly feel satisfied that Contador is going to be banned for a micro-trace-amount of clenbuterol, which he wouldn't even have been actively doping with at the time of the alleged infraction, as opposed to catching him properly doping, either with EPO, transfusions, record of a bank transfer or Western Union to China, etc? The triviality of the clen. is (imo) reflected immediately in the proposed 1-year ban. He wouldn't be facing any ban (imo) if the lab hadn't violated Contador's rights as an athlete (and his human rights?) and leaked confidential information to the German media.

The lab itself should be banned or at least de-certified - as should every lab that is the source for the leaking of confidential rider test data - and the responsible party should face criminal charges for breaches of data protection/privacy laws (if applicable).

Seriously, if you're going to string Contador up for having a speck of clen in his system, then sanction the lab and the lab personnel who violated ethical guidelines and contractual obligations and sporting/anti-doping regulations by leaking the info to the German media in the first place. At least the UCI tried to protect Contador's privacy, which he was entitled to according to anti-doping adjudication due process.

I think strict liability is BS; I think that athletes should have recourse to the Courts; and I now understand that I was used like any other pawn in a must-win case that could have brought down the entire corrupt anti-doping system if the truth on both sides had actually come out, and the ADA had played by the same set of rules and obligations it supposedly exists to ensure that athletes follow... :(

Newsflash: anti-doping agencies, labs, administrators, officials, etc. cheat, too, yet no one holds them accountable - ever. Well, in those rare cases when an athlete is found not guilty of doping because it's shown in glaring relief that the lab screwed up, or the sample was mishandled, or chain of custody broken, the athlete is hardly vindicated as he's then accused of just "getting off" on a "technicality" - as if following the rules is optional for the anti-doping agencies, while it's mandatory only for the athletes.

THAT's a topic I'd like to see discussed/debated in the Clinic. Do the ends really justify the means and isn't there immorality equal to the immorality of doping (if you think it's immoral and not just unethical) when the anti-doping movement and its actors don't follow their rules/guidelines/standards 100%?
+1
well said Joe.

To add to your post, how can WADA or the UCI comment publicly on an ongoing case, like have happened with AC's case?
That's insane.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Those of you who support Contador's suspension, let me ask you a hypothetical. If it could be shown that this forum's hero, yes, I mean Lance Armstrong, got on the phone and said, "Patty, my boy, send the Finger Banger's sample off to this lab for testing. I guarantee they'll find something," how would you feel then? Would you still support the suspension? Or would you say, "Hey, that's dirty pool. Other riders don't have their samples subjected to such exacting scrutiny. Boy, that Armstrong will stop at nothing." Or, would you say, "That Armstrong is a ***. But Conti's still guilty. Ban him!"?
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
joe_papp said:
And what, you're going to award the title to Schleck? How do you know there aren't plasticizers strewn about his stored blood samples?! NONE of the top guys who are doping deserve anything, but until you can definitively ensure beyond a shadow of the doubt that there are actually clean riders, who are you going to award the win to?
I understand your frustration and maybe this is what lead you to get into problems in the first place. The thing is no we cannot solve cyclings problems by waving a magic wand. But that does not mean people should just throw up their hands and say"what's the use?"
You start somewhere and you keep pluggin away. You clean up the organizations, You take down riders for small amounts or large you show there is a zero tolerance. You make it know that sample will be subject to post testing. You pursue riders and punish them. Show the riders that even if the guy won multiple tours and made a fortune that it will never be worth it. then you start getting riders to question whether it is worth it to dope. Once you have planted the seed of doubt you are winning the battle.
In the meantime, yeah maybe a doper wins a title, maybe they don;t award the title at all. Who knows that is not the focus. You want a definitive beyond a shadow of a doubt answer. There rarely is. in all walks of life not just cycling. That's why Bernie Madoff got so huge, if you might have noticed there have since been ALOT of people charged with Ponzi schemes. Business walks a fine line on legal/illegal, but people who follow the law don't just check it all in because of someone else's behaviour. We can't stop investigating just because we [Bmight [/B] not catch all the crooks. You can discourage bad behaviour but you cannot eliminate it.

I hate to single you out personally but your comment is kind of the rationalization that cheaters use for their behaviour. Everyone else is doing it so I have to do it too, If the authorities don't care enough about the rules tp enforce them why should i punish myself and be the only one to follow the rules?
Once the rules start being enforced the cheaters always come out of the woodwork and complain about uneven enforcement.

Some of us who have never cheated see that once you cross the line and you get caught you should accept your punishment and be a good loser.
Instead questions are raised as to whether we should even bother because we can't figure out if anyone is clean.
Well that view just eases your burden, you cheated , others cheated, you didn't get away with it, others will. Sorry if it is a hard pill to swallow,
life is not fair and you got punished while others skate free. Until you really come to terms with that you will have a much harder time.
I had a friend who street raced and got caught the guy complained and the cop told him " you were the only one i could catch"
It happens everyday, people break the law and go unpunished, accept it is a part of life & move on.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
joe_papp said:
Do you honestly feel satisfied that Contador is going to be banned for a micro-trace-amount of clenbuterol, which he wouldn't even have been actively doping with at the time of the alleged infraction, as opposed to catching him properly doping, either with EPO, transfusions, record of a bank transfer or Western Union to China, etc? The triviality of the clen. is (imo) reflected immediately in the proposed 1-year ban. He wouldn't be facing any ban (imo) if the lab hadn't violated Contador's rights as an athlete (and his human rights?) and leaked confidential information to the German media.
This is my thought. I have no doubt contador is doping but this whole clen situation has been a fiasco from start to finish, from the initial coverup to the leak, to the apparent hanging out to dry by the uci. It stinks.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
TeamSkyFans said:
This is my thought. I have no doubt contador is doping but this whole clen situation has been a fiasco from start to finish, from the initial coverup to the leak, to the apparent hanging out to dry by the uci. It stinks.
what stinks most is the one year ban.

The first lines of this article from the German Spiegel say what it comes down to:

Cycling star AC will be banned - however, only with half the penalty. the decision by the RFEC is typical for the lax attitude towards doping. This way, Spanish topsport comes under general suspition. (my translation from the original)

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,741895,00.html
 
TeamSkyFans said:
This is my thought. I have no doubt contador is doping but this whole clen situation has been a fiasco from start to finish, from the initial coverup to the leak, to the apparent hanging out to dry by the uci. It stinks.
It's a fiasco that a rider who is undoubtedly doping in your opinion actually slipped up and tested positive?
 
May 22, 2010
440
0
0
joe_papp said:
THAT's a topic I'd like to see discussed/debated in the Clinic. Do the ends really justify the means and isn't there immorality equal to the immorality of doping (if you think it's immoral and not just unethical) when the anti-doping movement and its actors don't follow their rules/guidelines/standards 100%?
correct me here, but we don't know who leaked contador's test results to the media. it could have been an employee of the lab, without the lab management's authorisation.

at the end of the day, our interest as cycling fans is in a clean sport. leaked results are an issue, but they don't change the result itself. contador was caught - leak or no leak.
 
What I don't get is if Contador tested positive for trace amounts of clen, why didn't the UCI make this known immediately? That is why did it have to be "leaked" for the public to have found out?

If there's any corruption here, it is to be found in the UCI's comportment, no doubt due to the delicacy of the case and the embarrassment it would have caused publicly for the governing body of cycling.

I'm not exactly happy with the result, in the sense that dethroning Alberto leaves us with Shleck as the "winner," however if I'm to be objective and not hypocritical, then I have to accept it. This contradicts a previous position of mine, I realize, but that was due to venting out on frustration over the pathetic parody of justice we have in the outcome of this case.

Rationally, however, one can only find the Spaniard guilty of the accusations against him, though this doesn't legitimize, in my humble opinion, giving the victor's honor to the previous runner-up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
roundabout said:
It's a fiasco that a rider who is undoubtedly doping in your opinion actually slipped up and tested positive?
no, the original cover up is a fiasco
the leaking of the result is a fiasco
the suspicion as to why this sample got sent to a certain lab
the hanging out to dry by mcquad of contador since is a fiasco
the mysterious dissapearing plasticizer positives of contador and schleck
the ban being 1yr shows no consistency.

from start to finish its a **** up

I would love to see contador banned for epo, or transfusions, or whatever else, but banning a rider for a minute amount of a non ped (in that quanitity) that is found in the food chain is NOT a means to an end.

I think there is a whole lot more to this whole story than meets the eye. a whole lot more.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
joe_papp said:
...as opposed to.. record of a bank transfer or Western Union to China, etc?
Speaking from experience???

joe_papp said:
...if the lab hadn't violated Contador's rights as an athlete (and his human rights?)
Sorry, but I gotta call nonsense when I hear it. Pro cyclists have no problem dropping their drawers and peeing in a cup in full view of a stranger, but when we ask you guys for a DNA sample to test against confiscated blood bags, etc.....OMG suddenly its all about human rights.

You, Bettini, and all the other hosers who have made this argument can go flick yourselves. Go stand in front of a tank in Tianamen Square or something...
 
Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
delbified said:
correct me here, but we don't know who leaked contador's test results to the media. it could have been an employee of the lab, without the lab management's authorisation.

at the end of the day, our interest as cycling fans is in a clean sport. leaked results are an issue, but they don't change the result itself. contador was caught - leak or no leak.
Whether it is the lab or an employee (and I am assuming one or the other without knowing in this case) it does not matter as the lab can only conduct tests and maintain chains of custody through employees. If lab or employee is prepared to break the rules to further their own agenda/s it only gives credence to the claims of others as to the potential for tampering with results.

This is true no matter how compelling the circumstances a lab or employee may find themselves in (and circumstances where a Contador result is being hushed up when a Li Fuyu was tossed immediately to the wolves are about as compelling as you can get).
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
NashbarShorts said:
Speaking from experience???



Sorry, but I gotta call nonsense when I hear it. Pro cyclists have no problem dropping their drawers and peeing in a cup in full view of a stranger, but when we ask you guys for a DNA sample to test against confiscated blood bags, etc.....OMG suddenly its all about human rights.

You, Bettini, and all the other hosers who have made this argument can go flick yourselves. Go stand in front of a tank in Tianamen Square or something...
Joe darn it you missed your calling as an attorney. Tyler and Floyd could have used you. Problem with Contador is he is a suspect rider from when your friend LeMond confronted him in the tour 09. I suspected him for a few years before that.

All things considered Contador got a lite sentence. If he fights it he will regret it.

About Tinneman square, dude you bought EPO from the Reds? Should have bought it from Poland likes missus Rumsas did, support the EU.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
flicker said:
Joe darn it you missed your calling as an attorney. Tyler and Floyd could have used you. Problem with Contador is he is a suspect rider from when your friend LeMond confronted him in the tour 09. I suspected him for a few years before that.

All things considered Contador got a lite sentence. If he fights it he will regret it.

About Tinneman square, dude you bought EPO from the Reds? Should have bought it from Poland likes missus Rumsas did, support the EU.
You really are clueless, aren't you?
Joe NEVER said that Contador wasn't guilty of doping, he pointed out how crooked the system is, which I strongly agree with.

Also, Contador has not been sentenced yet, but a fool like you don't apparently even understand that.

Go figure.
 
peloton said:
You really are clueless, aren't you?
Joe NEVER said that Contador wasn't guilty of doping, he pointed out how crooked the system is, which I strongly agree with.

Also, Contador has not been sentenced yet, but a fool like you don't apparently even understand that.

Go figure.
A cluelss fool, yes, go figure. And straight form the horses mouth. Go figure indeed. :rolleyes:
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
peloton said:
You really are clueless, aren't you?
Joe NEVER said that Contador wasn't guilty of doping, he pointed out how crooked the system is, which I strongly agree with.

Also, Contador has not been sentenced yet, but a fool like you don't apparently even understand that.

Go figure.
It is a sentence which can be changed by UCI, WADA whomever. We in the kangaroo court of public opinion in a computer forum our public opinion matters also.
In doping I see many shades of gray. With Joe a flat gray green, framed by the yellow and black Steeler colours. IE; Joe has shown his true colours as to what he is about. I can't fault him, I don't walk in his shoes.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
rhubroma said:
A cluelss fool, yes, go figure. And straight form the horses mouth. Go figure indeed. :rolleyes:
Kimmage has it right about Contador IMO. For the sake of the sport 1 year is fair for Contador.

Joe says the amount of Clen in Contador is insignifigant. 3 different opinions, no issue.
 
flicker said:
Kimmage has it right about Contador IMO. For the sake of the sport 1 year is fair for Contador.

Joe says the amount of Clen in Contador is insignifigant. 3 different opinions, no issue.
Well I agree with you on Kimmage being right. I'm not sure on the one year ban being "fair", and Joe's assessment of the clen being insignifcant is pretty much universally accepted, though not for this is Contador free of indictment.

So go figure.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
rhubroma said:
Well I agree with you on Kimmage being right. I'm not sure on the one year ban being "fair", and Joe's assessment of the clen being insignifcant is pretty much universally accepted, though not for this is Contador free of indictment.

So go figure.
My guess, Contador E.T. for a long long time. Kimmage knows the sport inside out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS