Marca says Contador to get 1 yr

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jamsque said:
... 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.
+1. Has he actually proved the "no fault"? As python pointed out earlier, we've heard that all sorts of evidence has been submitted on his behalf to that effect but obviously nobody's seen any of it.
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Jamsque said:
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.
It depends on the evidence presented by both sides, which we haven't seen. IF there was clear, admissable, evidence that he doped and that evidence was included in the process then yes, I'd agree that he should do two years. Assuming that clarity is not present, I'm prepared to accept a one year ban (and losing the Tour is no small punishment) in preference to a protracted legal scrap which would leave everyone looking undignified. That's pragmatism, not acceptance of the steak defence.
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,841
1
0
If the UCI compromises on Contador's suspension in order to avoid a 'protracted legal scrap' it will set a very dangerous and worrying precedent.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
For the good of cycling a 1 year ban is fair,w/DQ Tour 2010. Minus the 3 weeks Contador rode in July last year. Make it like a misdemeanor criminal case, once he begins racing, the DQ is stricken from the records, as if he never competed in the 2010 event.

I would say that he should be eligible for the 2011 tour but the organizers need to give him his obligatory ban from the tour, just for this year.

He can make his debut GT event at the Vuelta 11 raising the bar, possibly elevating the Vuelta to 3rd GT status.

Of course as of the lifting of his ban Contador should plead to ride the tour 11 but given the cold shoulder by the organizers.

After Contadors tour snub, I hope Contador makes a firey comeback in all types of smaller races, some coinciding with the tour. Of course Contador needs to be banned from any celebraty,Crits , Japan race, races in the Carribean.

Contador needs the bread and water diet, do not pass go do not collect $200
no You Tube whining, no endorsements etc.

This is my thought for the good of the cycling fan base and fairness to the other riders. I hope some of the chief mucky mucks in the sport of cycling take heed to my words.

Let the circus continue!
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Jamsque said:
If the UCI compromises on Contador's suspension in order to avoid a 'protracted legal scrap' it will set a very dangerous and worrying precedent.
I don't agree. Look at the ridiculous farrago with Valverde. So far as I can tell it was an open and shut case:- after all, his blood was in Fuentes' fridge. Despite this it dragged on and on. There are more variables and less certainty (so far as we know) in the Contador case, so do you expect the legal shennanigans to be any less tortuous? To me the important thing is that any punishment should be made to stick.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
This sport is ridiculous.

Contador's title goes to Schleck.
Heras' title goes to Menchov.
Landis' title goes to Pereiro.

It's like playing musical dopers.
so in order to win a GT finish second and have patience:D
 
Chuffy said:
I don't agree. Look at the ridiculous farrago with Valverde. So far as I can tell it was an open and shut case:- after all, his blood was in Fuentes' fridge. Despite this it dragged on and on. There are more variables and less certainty (so far as we know) in the Contador case, so do you expect the legal shennanigans to be any less tortuous? To me the important thing is that any punishment should be made to stick.
The difference was that Valverde wasn't banned before CAS made its ruling. Contador is provisionally suspended, he won't ride, and any CAS battle wouldn't be much of a diversion from the sport. I mean, yeah, it'd be bad PR for cycling, but at this point, who cares?
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
This sport is ridiculous.

Contador's title goes to Schleck.
Heras' title goes to Menchov.
Landis' title goes to Pereiro.

It's like playing musical dopers.
It certainly is ridiculous that so many people cheat, thankfully at least some of them get caught.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
Tit for tat.

1 Year with a 2010 TDF DNF is a significant sanction (even if it is a "compromise").

If I was the UCI, I would accept this, and let the process end.

On the other hand, if Contador appeals, then the UCI should as well (try to get two year sanction back).
 
Andynonomous said:
1 Year with a 2010 TDF DNF is a significant sanction (even if it is a "compromise").

If I was the UCI, I would accept this, and let the process end.

On the other hand, if Contador appeals, then the UCI should as well (try to get two year sanction back).
I can certainly see the UCI and Contador reaching a compromise. "OK, I get the one-year spank and we leave it at this".

But, the WADA guys are nasty, for them it's either full spanking or nothing.
 
Aug 3, 2009
169
0
0
Siriuscat said:
Losing Tdf '10, no TDF '11 backdated to date of test as most other bans appear to be would be a fair compromise.
I agree. I don't see Contador as cheating any more than most of his competition so take the title (due to his getting caught) and hold him out a year. Then turn him loose.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Chuffy said:
It depends on the evidence presented by both sides, which we haven't seen. IF there was clear, admissable, evidence that he doped and that evidence was included in the process then yes, I'd agree that he should do two years. Assuming that clarity is not present, I'm prepared to accept a one year ban (and losing the Tour is no small punishment) in preference to a protracted legal scrap which would leave everyone looking undignified. That's pragmatism, not acceptance of the steak defence.
Yes it is called positive A & B samples.
That changes the burden of proof to Contador. The tests proves he has the substance in his body, he has not denied this. So according to the rules which allow for zero tolerance of this drug he now has the burden of proof that it was accidentalingestion.
How exactly is it possible to prove lack of intent?

A receipt? other tainted meat? a note from your doctor?
Seriously, the proof is that had the drug in his system, he is responsible to make sure that does not happen, and it is impossible to prove lack of intent as that is only in the mind of the individual. In addition the cornerstone of such a defense would be to prove exactly how the drug entered his system as you would be proving intent on a single event. Also impossible to prove.
For instance, lets say it was food contaimination and there wassome way to prove lack of intent. They have to prove it was ingestion and not microdosing, not a blood transfusion, etc. If you had half the steak for instance, and measured the percentage of CB in the steak and calculated the amount he ingested from what was left and if that would equal the amount found in his urine after his body had processed it, that would probably be allowed as proof of contamination by ingestion.
However even that could be contested if found that micro dosing or blood transfusions could come up with the same amount found.

Anything less than max ban is a joke.
 
Mar 18, 2009
775
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
This sport is ridiculous.

Contador's title goes to Schleck.
Heras' title goes to Menchov.
Landis' title goes to Pereiro.

It's like playing musical dopers.
I disagree--I think this is the great thing about our sport. In two weeks, we'll know who won the Super Bowl and the whole thing will be over, but the Tour never ends! It's still AC vs. AS, but now instead of battling it out on the cols, they're fighting with lawyers and labs, instead of teams, officials. Cycling has figured out how to make its biggest events go on forever. The suspense continues, and the tifosi are all still yelling. If they decide to approve the plasticizer test, and go through the top finishers, then last year's Tour could be undecided for years. How awesome is that?
 
Wallace said:
I disagree--I think this is the great thing about our sport. In two weeks, we'll know who won the Super Bowl and the whole thing will be over, but the Tour never ends! It's still AC vs. AS, but now instead of battling it out on the cols, they're fighting with lawyers and labs, instead of teams, officials. Cycling has figured out how to make its biggest events go on forever. The suspense continues, and the tifosi are all still yelling. If they decide to approve the plasticizer test, and go through the top finishers, then last year's Tour could be undecided for years. How awesome is that?
Agreed! Endless suspense. Andy may have dropped his chain on the mountain, but Alberto dropped his dope in the urine container. Now Andy's got 7 years or so in which not to make a mistake, and the title is his for good, just like Riis.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Wallace said:
I disagree--I think this is the great thing about our sport. In two weeks, we'll know who won the Super Bowl and the whole thing will be over, but the Tour never ends! It's still AC vs. AS, but now instead of battling it out on the cols, they're fighting with lawyers and labs, instead of teams, officials. Cycling has figured out how to make its biggest events go on forever. The suspense continues, and the tifosi are all still yelling. If they decide to approve the plasticizer test, and go through the top finishers, then last year's Tour could be undecided for years. How awesome is that?
indeed. doping has never been shown to damage the popularity of cycling. that's why it's being tolerated from higher up.
that's why i so much appreciated the German television's decision back then to stop broadcasting. Really the only way to signal that doping should be fought rather than endulged, iyam.

back on topic: the rumors of a one year RFEC-ban are spreading. Probably that is indeed how it'll go down. And then to CAS.
http://de.eurosport.yahoo.com/25012011/73/medien-contador-gesperrt.html
 
If he gets a year-I think is fair , since Ac's "meat contamination" has no support anywhere, the UCI fvcked up the whole process by taking months before they announced the positive & RFEC don't want to look biased-SO let's get the maximum ban split in half and everybody is happy.:)
 
hfer07 said:
If he gets a year-I think is fair , since Ac's "meat contamination" has no support anywhere, the UCI fvcked up the whole process by taking months before they announced the positive & RFEC don't want to look biased-SO let's get the maximum ban split in half and everybody is happy.:)
More like everybody is unhappy.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Descender said:
More like everybody is unhappy.
I accept cycling for what it is, like life it is imperfect. Enjoy the circus, enjoy the spectacle, live long and prosper.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Descender said:
More like everybody is unhappy.
indeed.
don't forget this guy is one of the dirtiest juicers out there.
he was lucky to avoid sanctions after OP.
in all honesty, the guy shouldn't be racing anymore, considering how big a juicer he is.
but then again, the same can be said about frank and consequently andy
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
It's Marca. It's all speculative nonsense. They make crap up and get lucky sometimes. It's impossible to fill 30 pages with news about Real Madrid every single day.
 
hfer07 said:
If he gets a year-I think is fair , since Ac's "meat contamination" has no support anywhere, the UCI fvcked up the whole process by taking months before they announced the positive & RFEC don't want to look biased-SO let's get the maximum ban split in half and everybody is happy.:)
You are making a faulty assumption about the UCI's role. Numerous anecdotes about UCI's role in managing these positives abound. UCI and RFEC are likely working together on this to minimize Pharmador's vacation. Pat knows Schleck/Pharmador is a good, dramatic story. They want to restart it ASAP.

If Pat can get to the end of this and still pretend the UCI did what it could to enforce a WADA sanction, then it's a win. Just don't ask him for communication between the UCI, Pharmador's team, and RFEC. That would tell a different story.

We also know WADA's testing is restrained by Pat and the UCI. WADA is not the powerful organization some of you make them out to be. With the UCI running interference for the dopers, they have no power.

I'm with runninboy's comments. Why are some of you are so willing to compromise on these positives? It just enables the doping.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY