Marca says Contador to get 1 yr

Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Assuming that's correct, does it imply that he *hasn't* been done for deliberate doping? A one year ban suggests that he's got the lightest punishment possible (although it's relative, seeing as he loses the Tour) and doesn't have the words DOPER branded on his forehead.

OTOH as the amount detected was minimal and the plasticizer evidence wouldn't have been admissable, a harsher punishment could be seen as unfair and unjustifiable, certainly by AC's legal team....
 
Apr 28, 2010
1,588
0
0
Apparently he's looking for it to be back-dated. So one year from the end of the TdF would mean he can ride this year's Vuelta. I wonder whether the Spanish would accede to that request... :rolleyes:
 

ttrider

BANNED
Apr 23, 2010
386
0
0
I would hope he gets a verdict of accidental contamination a 1 year ban and keeps the tdf, **** the vuelta will have the strongest GT field at this rate!
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
python said:
i believe it will be 2 or none. could be wrong though..
Wouldn't a two year ban depend on it being deliberate? I mean that in the sense of it being provable within the limitations of the evidence presented.

If the result is as the OP states then I'd see that as a pragmatic compromise. AC is given a punishment that will stick and we don't end up going through the whole ludicrous denial-arbitration-CAS circus.
 
Jul 3, 2009
305
0
0
Nice try to get him out easily. But I'm quite sure that WADA and UCI are going to appeal a one-year-sentence before CAS. However, with this outcome, at least to things would be certain: 1st AC would lose the tour-title. 2nd AC would miss TdF 2011. Oh and a 3rd: Nobody could claim ever again - like AC himself did in several interviews - that he is part of the "young and clean" generation.
 
Jul 25, 2010
372
0
0
I'll be satisfied with a year ban and TdF win stripped. There's no doubting he had clen in him, but if there's doubt that it wasn't deliberate doping then a 2 year ban wouldn't be fair.
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
One year sound very likely considering how the spanish cycling federation tried to mess with the process and get a reduced suspension for Contador, with the approval of UCI.

Still I expect UCI to appeal anything but 2 years.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Chuffy said:
Wouldn't a two year ban depend on it being deliberate? I mean that in the sense of it being provable within the limitations of the evidence presented.

If the result is as the OP states then I'd see that as a pragmatic compromise. AC is given a punishment that will stick and we don't end up going through the whole ludicrous denial-arbitration-CAS circus.
Not really, from the WADA-code:

It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that
no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body.
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited
Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found
to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is
not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or
knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be
demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping violation under Article 2.1


Basically, a 2 year ban is standard, if the athlete wants a shorter ban (or no ban), it's his or her duty to prove why they deserve a shorter ban.
 
SiAp1984 said:
Nice try to get him out easily. But I'm quite sure that WADA and UCI are going to appeal a one-year-sentence before CAS. However, with this outcome, at least to things would be certain: 1st AC would lose the tour-title. 2nd AC would miss TdF 2011. Oh and a 3rd: Nobody could claim ever again - like AC himself did in several interviews - that he is part of the "young and clean" generation.
Depends. If he gets a 1-year ban that basically means the RFEC (and UCI and WADA if they don't appeal) buy his contaminated steak theory and he can go on claiming he's always been clean. If they don't buy it, he gets a 2-year ban.
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,841
1
0
If these rumours are true (and that is still a sizeable if), I would very much like to see what reason the Spanish Federation gives for reducing Contador's suspension,. His 'contaminated meat' defence is paper-thin, since (as Lanark pointed out) riders are supposed to be held responsible for what enters their body, so it shouldn't matter if he ate a steak full of clenbuterol or not.

Stripping him of the 2010 Maillot Jaune and keeping him out of the 2011 Tour de France is certainly better than my most pessimistic prediction for the outcome of this process, but there is no doubt that according to the letter of the law he should get a two year ban and I hope the UCI appeals the result and keeps Bertie out of the 2012 Tour as well.

Hell, I hope Contador makes good on his petulant decree that he would throw his toys out of the pram and quit the sport if he was suspended. I'd be very happy to never see him race again.
 

ttrider

BANNED
Apr 23, 2010
386
0
0
1st eligible GT will be the 2012 Giro if 1 year as ban is scheduled to begin on 24 August, Vuelta will start on the 20 August
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Chuffy said:
Wouldn't a two year ban depend on it being deliberate? I mean that in the sense of it being provable within the limitations of the evidence presented.

If the result is as the OP states then I'd see that as a pragmatic compromise. AC is given a punishment that will stick and we don't end up going through the whole ludicrous denial-arbitration-CAS circus.
i wish the rules were based on pragmatic principles :)…but they are not.

the 2 applicable wada punishment rules are in paras. 10.5.1 (no fault) and 10.5.2 (no significant fault). describing punishments

the way i interpreted the (available) evidence all along was that ‘no significant fault’ does not apply.

it was either an involuntary ingestion of the contaminated beef (1) or an auto blood transfusion. (2)

no prescription medicine/supplement (3), no micro dosing (4), no clen loaded saliva in kisses (5), no clen vapour/fumes (6).

if contador succeeds in showing (1) was likelier than was either of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - he walks.

if he fails either of the six he eventually goes away for 2 yrs (perhaps after the cas arbitration)

wada's strict liability is a funny rule and is difficult to beat even if the reality is on your side.

but we haven’t seen all evidence…
 
hrotha said:
Depends. If he gets a 1-year ban that basically means the RFEC (and UCI and WADA if they don't appeal) buy his contaminated steak theory and he can go on claiming he's always been clean. If they don't buy it, he gets a 2-year ban.
I think they don't buy it at all but he still only gets one year. The way this whole case has been handled gives cause for doubt on the entire process and decision making.
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
python said:
i wish the rules were based on pragmatic principles :)…but they are not.

the 2 applicable wada punishment rules are in paras. 10.5.1 (no fault) and 10.5.2 (no significant fault). describing punishments

the way i interpreted the (available) evidence all along was that ‘no significant fault’ does not apply.

it was either an involuntary ingestion of the contaminated beef (1) or an auto blood transfusion. (2)

no prescription medicine/supplement (3), no micro dosing (4), no clen loaded saliva in kisses (5), no clen vapour/fumes (6).

if contador succeeds in showing (1) was likelier than was either of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - he walks.

if he fails either of the six he eventually goes away for 2 yrs (perhaps after the cas arbitration)

wada's strict liability is a funny rule and is difficult to beat even if the reality is on your side.

but we haven’t seen all evidence…
Cheers. What you (and lanark) describe sounds pretty clear and unequivocal, eg prove the 'no-fault' defence or take the two years. That suggests that we really need to hear the judgement (and see the evidence) before reading the tea leaves.

I'd settle for the one year + loss of TdF. I'd prefer that than a protracted legal wrangle.

How long before the plasticiser test is fit for purpose and ratified?
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
veganrob said:
I think they don't buy it at all but he still only gets one year. The way this whole case has been handled gives cause for doubt on the entire process and decision making.
How so? I seem to recall that when this all broke people were accusing the UCI of trying to sweep the whole thing under the carpet. Now we have a clear indication that Bertie is going to be suspended and lose the Tour. Not only that but the speculation in news articles is that UCI would be likely to appeal if he 'only' gets one year.

As Python says, we don't have all the facts.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Chuffy said:
Cheers. What you (and lanark) describe sounds pretty clear and unequivocal, eg prove the 'no-fault' defence or take the two years. That suggests that we really need to hear the judgement (and see the evidence) before reading the tea leaves.

I'd settle for the one year + loss of TdF. I'd prefer that than a protracted legal wrangle.

How long before the plasticiser test is fit for purpose and ratified?
the plasticizer test has been validated some weeks ago (IIRC a peer reviewed publication took place about weeks ago) but we still don't have a confirmation if:

- it was indeed used on contador
- if his blood passport was suspicious or abnormal for the same period

only then it would bite.
 
May 24, 2010
855
0
0
Losing Tdf '10, no TDF '11 backdated to date of test as most other bans appear to be would be a fair compromise.
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,841
1
0
python said:
the plasticizer test has been validated some weeks ago (IIRC a peer reviewed publication took place about weeks ago) but we still don't have a confirmation if:

- it was indeed used on contador
- if his blood passport was suspicious or abnormal for the same period

only then it would bite.
I'm not sure what the regulations are in this situation. Contador's samples were tested for plasticiser before the test was validated, which probably makes the results of that test inadmissible as evidence of doping. I don't know what the procedures for re-testing old samples are but I am sure Contador's legal team will fight tooth and nail to prevent any retro-active analysis taking place.


Siriuscat and others, why 'compromise'? Why does Contador get special treatment? He broke the rules, he should be punished according to the letter of the law. I don't understand people who are saying that it is OK for him to get less than the full suspension just because he made up an irrelevant story about some steak.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY