Marca says Contador to get 1 yr

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 18, 2010
156
0
0
why didn't the uci took charge of this situation to begin with. i mean if contador does not get two years they willl appeal WTF? if they had taken care of it this would not be happening. i say either let him off or give him 2 years. whatever the results are the uci needs to be more consistant; i mean mosquera, pellozoti, etc. if the athletes are responsible for what gets into their bodies how come that table tennis player got off so easy. what do they suppose to do lab check every piece of meat before ingesting it.
 
Jul 15, 2010
47
0
0
danjo007 said:
hope so. i agree totally.
+1

If a one year ban is the outcome I would rather UCI/WADA went to CAS to argue for 2 years even if that risks the ban being completely overturned.

A one year ban sends out all the wrong messages.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
nice little critical piece of commentary in the Süddeutsche Zeitung about AC's upcoming one year ban, Fuentes, the Spanish cover up of OP, their reluctance to link their sportive success to Fuentes, etc. About the fraud that Frank Schleck is. Walter Mayer explaining how Clen is nowadays used in longdistance skiing in combination with GEN-therapy.
I'm not sure how online translating goes (yes, I'm a devotee to the oldschool). Sorry about that. Hope those that are interested will know how to do the translation thing.
I've put some of the more compelling quotes in bold.

Von Thomas Kistner

Alberto Contador soll trotz Clenbuterol-Befundes bei der Tour 2010 nur für ein Jahr gesperrt werden, heißt es in Spanien, und auch wenn der Spruch noch aussteht: Mit einem milden Urteil darf dieser hohe Vertreter der generaciãn de oro, der iberischen Gold-Generation, gewiss rechnen. Spaniens luft- und kraftstrotzende Helden mischen seit Jahren die Kernsportarten auf: Rad, Fußball, Leichtathletik, Tennis. Dass aber der legendäre Madrider Blutdoper Fuentes kürzlich erneut verhaftet wurde, wird in der steil aufstrebenden Sportnation keineswegs als Indiz dafür gesehen, dass es neben göttlichem Generationenglück ein paar weltliche Gründe geben könnte für die wundersame Dominanz. Der Hinweis ist nötig, weil Spaniens Justiz die Akte Fuentes in dem Moment hastig zuklappte, als mehr herauszusickern begann als die paar Dutzend Radprofis aus aller Herren Länder. Ein gewisser A.C. zum Beispiel, dessen Blutbeutel flott verschwanden.



Wer diese Dopingbelege einfordert, beißt in Spanien auf Granit. Und ausländische Medien wie Le Monde, die Fuentes" Medikationspläne für namhafte Fußballklubs publizierten, kassierten enorme Geldbußen in Prozessen, bei denen die Vorlage just dieser Pläne untersagt wurde. Sollte es kommen wie angedroht, muss die Welt-Anti-Doping-Agentur Wada zeigen, ob sie mehr als ein Papiertiger ist. Spaniens Sportstaatssekretär ist, noch so ein Zufall, Europas Vertreter in ihrem Vorstand.

Bei einer Verurteilung ginge Contadors Tour-Sieg auf Andy Schleck über - den, hoppla, Bruder des Fuentes-Kunden Frank Schleck. Zweiter wäre der Russe Denis Mentschow, der nicht Fuentes, sondern der Wiener Humanplasma-Affäre zugerechnet wird (was er bestreitet); Dritter wäre mit Samuel Sanchez der nächste aus der Goldgeneration. Was aber Humanplasma angeht: Eine Kernfigur der Österreich-Affäre, Langlauftrainer Walter Mayer, teilt im Buch eines Freundes mit, dass heute Clenbuterol mit verändertem Genprofil in Gebrauch sei: 'Da sieht man in der Auswertung fünf statt drei Türmchen, und keiner weiß, was es ist.'

Dies vom Kenner an die Wada zur Frage, ob Contadors Sperre verkürzt werden darf, weil man ja nicht weiß, wie das Zeug in seinen Körper kam.
 
This sounds particularly interesting, but even though I understand all the words, I'm not quite sure what it truly means and what the implications thereof are:
Eine Kernfigur der Österreich-Affäre, Langlauftrainer Walter Mayer, teilt im Buch eines Freundes mit, dass heute Clenbuterol mit verändertem Genprofil in Gebrauch sei: 'Da sieht man in der Auswertung fünf statt drei Türmchen, und keiner weiß, was es ist.'
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
nah, no uno ano..

1 year according to strict reading of wada rules literally means ‘we believe you but you should have known better than eating spanish beef”.

wait a minute, does this make sense ?

let’s compare…

‘you should have known better than eating chinese pork’, ‘
you should have know better than eating mexican beef’

the last two sentences make sense and supported by objective data, the first one is nonsense.

It’s absurd to expect contador to abstain from eating spanish meat but that’s what 1 year effectively means.

that’s why I continue to believe, it’s 2 years or none.
 
Aug 27, 2010
970
0
0
python said:
1 year according to strict reading of wada rules literally means ‘we believe you but you should have known better than eating spanish beef”.

wait a minute, does this make sense ?

let’s compare…

‘you should have known better than eating chinese pork’, ‘
you should have know better than eating mexican beef’

the last two sentences make sense and supported by objective data, the first one is nonsense.

It’s absurd to expect contador to abstain from eating spanish meat but that’s what 1 year effectively means.

that’s why I continue to believe, it’s 2 years or none.
Exactly! Clen is forbidden in european meat production, so if Contador can somehow convince the courts that it was indeed infected meat he should be let go, because he had no reason to suspect anything was wrong. If he had been gobbling down powder from a container with a name like "ROCKET NUGGETS - SO STRONG IT SHOULD BE ILLIGAL!" then they could say you should have known better, take one year break!

Like Python I cannot see how it can be anything but all or nothing without the federations making themselves look like total a$$es. But then again the federations may not care how they look anymore.
 
Ney the Viking said:
Exactly! Clen is forbidden in european meat production, so if Contador can somehow convince the courts that it was indeed infected meat he should be let go, because he had no reason to suspect anything was wrong...
Yes, indeed. But surely he will find it quite difficult to prove that. The evidence has been eaten.
 
Jul 25, 2010
372
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
The burden of proving it was contamination lieswith Contador, and his defense team failed to demonstrate any contaminated meat. In fact, just the opposite occurred: WADA showed that the meat they tested from the butcher was not contaminated.

What does it say about the credibility of Contador's defense that his own defense team failed to even test any meat from the butcher...yet WADA did????

Contador deserves 2 years.
In most legal systems you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They've proved he had an illegal substance in him, but can they prove he took it deliberately to improve performance? If there's significant doubt then they hopefully that'll be reflected in the length of the ban.

Whatever happens, he'll have a great big black mark against him and his achievements in the history books.
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,841
1
0
Izzy eviel said:
In most legal systems you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They've proved he had an illegal substance in him, but can they prove he took it deliberately to improve performance? If there's significant doubt then they hopefully that'll be reflected in the length of the ban.

Whatever happens, he'll have a great big black mark against him and his achievements in the history books.
According to the rules of the UCI and WADA the bolded part of what you said is the ONLY THING that matters in regards to Contador's case. Banned substances are banned substances, whether the rider is taking them to enhance his performance or just to flavour his pasta. It DOES NOT MATTER whether or not he took it deliberately or accidentally, and it DOES NOT MATTER whether he took it to improve his performance or not.
 
Aug 27, 2010
970
0
0
L'arriviste said:
Yes, indeed. But surely he will find it quite difficult to prove that. The evidence has been eaten.
Indeed, and if he cannot prove it he should get the 2 years.

The ONLY way I could see them getting by with 1 year is if Contador has provided hair samples with a very small amount of clen in it. Then they can say:
"The hair samples suggests that he didnt ingest Clen as a PED due to the amounts found in the test, and we have then chosen to believe his explanation about the cow. But as Clen is still on the forbidden list, and there has been no proof of it actually being contaminated beef we cannot let him go free enterely, so one year ban it is because he is such a stand up guy!"

But I cannot see either Contador or CAS going for that, so it's all a bit of a moot point :eek:
 
If Contador were exonerated after RFEC, UCI and WADA agreed he ingested clen through no fault of his own, would he still be DQ'ed from the Tour, since the clen did show up in his system?

(Not that I think that's what'll happen, it's just a question about the rules)
 
Ney the Viking said:
Indeed, and if he cannot prove it he should get the 2 years.

The ONLY way I could see them getting by with 1 year is if Contador has provided hair samples with a very small amount of clen in it. Then they can say:
"The hair samples suggests that he didnt ingest Clen as a PED due to the amounts found in the test, and we have then chosen to believe his explanation about the cow. But as Clen is still on the forbidden list, and there has been no proof of it actually being contaminated beef we cannot let him go free enterely, so one year ban it is because he is such a stand up guy!"

But I cannot see either Contador or CAS going for that, so it's all a bit of a moot point :eek:
+1. And as a result, I would like to see how they justify a decision that leads to a sentence of <= 1 year.

hrotha said:
If Contador were exonerated after RFEC, UCI and WADA agreed he ingested clen through no fault of his own, would he still be DQ'ed from the Tour, since the clen did show up in his system?

(Not that I think that's what'll happen, it's just a question about the rules)
I think that would be the case yes, if they followed the scraps of precedent we have.

The fact that we're not sure here just proves how tatty the whole business of anti-doping penalties has become in pro cycling. :(
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
hrotha said:
If Contador were exonerated after RFEC, UCI and WADA agreed he ingested clen through no fault of his own, would he still be DQ'ed from the Tour, since the clen did show up in his system?

(Not that I think that's what'll happen, it's just a question about the rules)
IIRC the rules aren't 100% clear about this. Usually, you would scrap the result on the day of the positive test, but I believe he was caught on the second rest day. He had some trace amounts in his system the next day (20 picogram), but those were clearly the result of whatever he ingested the day before. The rules don't determine one course of action, it will probably be a judgement call by the UCI (or CAS).
 
Jamsque said:
According to the rules of the UCI and WADA the bolded part of what you said is the ONLY THING that matters in regards to Contador's case. Banned substances are banned substances, whether the rider is taking them to enhance his performance or just to flavour his pasta. It DOES NOT MATTER whether or not he took it deliberately or accidentally, and it DOES NOT MATTER whether he took it to improve his performance or not.
then my arguement is why did tom boonen get let off for taking coke twice?

yet rugby player matt stevens gets 2 years for coke
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Izzy eviel said:
In most legal systems you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They've proved he had an illegal substance in him, but can they prove he took it deliberately to improve performance? If there's significant doubt then they hopefully that'll be reflected in the length of the ban.

Whatever happens, he'll have a great big black mark against him and his achievements in the history books.
WADA doesn't have that "presumed innocent" premise. It's a strict liability system which means once you failed an analytical test you are pRESUMED guilty and then the burden of proof shifts to the athlete to prove it wasn't intentional (or the test was wrong).

So your understanding of the WADA system is incorrect.

Contador will be unable to prove how he ingested clenbuterol (unlike Landis, Contador doesn't contest the test result). The problem with Contador is he has no contaminted meat samples to show in the hearing or to CAS! In fact - and I find this shocking - his defense teams didn't even bother to test the meat from the alleged butcher in questions. I think that says something about the credibility and competency (or incompetency) of his legal team and his entire defense.

Contador and his lawyers are complete idiots with the defense they are putting forth and they will lose this case. Contador will get the full 2 years. ZERO doubt in my mind. This case is a no brainer and the guy is guilty as hell of blood doping. Contador is also likely a massive doper and without dope he isn't even capable of a top-5 finish.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
therealtimshady said:
then my arguement is why did tom boonen get let off for taking coke twice?

yet rugby player matt stevens gets 2 years for coke
Because cocaine is only banned during competition, if Boonen was caught a week later, he would have served a 2 year ban (of course, he probably wasn't that stupid, and didn't use cocaine during races).
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Belgian news just said he got a one year ban.

I don't know if it's true, but if it is then he's very lucky.
 
Apparently the source is El Pais : http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE70P2FL20110126

Jan 26 (Reuters) - The Spanish cycling federation has suspended Tour de France champion Alberto Contador for one year over his failed doping test in the 2010 race, newspaper El Pais reported on Wednesday.

The decision by the federation's competition committee was communicated to Contador at midday local time and the Spaniard has 10 days to appeal before a final decision is taken, the paper said without identifying the source of its information.
 
Mar 10, 2009
491
0
0
Jamsque said:
According to the rules of the UCI and WADA the bolded part of what you said is the ONLY THING that matters in regards to Contador's case. Banned substances are banned substances, whether the rider is taking them to enhance his performance or just to flavour his pasta. It DOES NOT MATTER whether or not he took it deliberately or accidentally, and it DOES NOT MATTER whether he took it to improve his performance or not.
Spot on. Spot on. Spot on. To me, I also don't care if we're talking micro doses of clen or full-blown, turbocharged epo mixed with pot belge. A cheat is a cheat.

This better get appealed to a 2-year ban.
 
At least they're not letting him walk...that would have been a major embarassment. Let's see what he does, honestly 1 year is the best he can hope for...maybe he'll realize that and make good on his promise to quit...
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
So the question is, will Contador keep his word and retire from cycling or was that just another fairytale from a troubled liar?
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
1
0
This is pretty much what I expected, a solution that allows everyone to declare partial victory. The suspension will probably be backdated to the last time that Contador rode so that he can race the Vuelta. Next year we get all the hype about the Contador vs. Schleck showdown at the Tour.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY