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%?