McQuaid on Contador

[sniper]

some of you are just funny..

"he wanted to keep this quiet, *******!"

obviously that this wasnt suposed to come as a leak! this is how law works (or at least in theory)!!! the source of the leak should have been arrested (at least, processed). the case should have been solved first and then outsiders (like us) were informed about it. who are you to demand something like that (being informed about an ongoing investigation) ? contador isn't guilty (at least yet) and he has a chance (not that small as some of you think, maybe 50 50) of win this (use your brain and logic and you will now why).

if he get's free, someone will have to pay a large amount of €.. and the major guilty is the source of the leak and mags\newspappers that are "eating" this case (with theories (talking about those theories as facts, etc) etc) and contador's morale (if he isnt found guilty).

some of you are pathetic... yes, those that think that they are WADA scientists etc.. you know nothing (besides what wiki says).

A big mouth, small d..k you got.
There is no law involved as long as we're only talking about results of tests, not about suspensions. No legal need to cover up plain results of tests.

 

[180mmCrank]

Can we keep this conversational and drop the abuse / colour in the language

Thanks

Terry

 

[CycloErgoSum]

The Contador case was leaked as somebody in the know objected to the UCI's attempted cover-up. What we're seeing now is stalling tactics and damage control from McQuaid.

It's really sad to see somebody get special treatment because they're a name. McQuaid has admitted to this with his 'because it's Contador we have to get things right' comments. So it could have been a huge mistake with Colo and Li Fuyu but, oh to hell with those nobodies.

Despite the close margin, I found this year's Tour depressing to watch. The continuing and ridiculous presence of Armstrong, and the strong intuition that Contador and Schleck are not all they seem.

To quote Jon Lydon: "Ever get the feeling you're being cheated...a ha ha ha ah?"

Professional cycling is full of degenerates. We're fools to care.

 

[hrotha]

The problem here is there's no way we can trust the UCI to do the right thing. If it were an independent and trustworthy body and they were handling this exactly like they're doing it now, most of us would be inclined to believe their being secretive or whatever until they had made a final decision was necessary and generally a good idea. But with the current UCI, the theory of the cover-up just fits all the evidence and precedents too well. Yet another reason for the UCI to give up the anti-doping role.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

some of you are just funny..

"he wanted to keep this quiet, *******!"

obviously that this wasnt suposed to come as a leak! this is how law works (or at least in theory)!!! the source of the leak should have been arrested (at least, processed). the case should have been solved first and then outsiders (like us) were informed about it. who are you to demand something like that (being informed about an ongoing investigation) ? contador isn't guilty (at least yet) and he has a chance (not that small as some of you think, maybe 50 50) of win this (use your brain and logic and you will now why).

if he get's free, someone will have to pay a large amount of €.. and the major guilty is the source of the leak and mags\newspappers that are "eating" this case (with theories (talking about those theories as facts, etc) etc) and contador's morale (if he isnt found guilty).

some of you are pathetic... yes, those that think that they are WADA scientists etc.. you know nothing (besides what wiki says).

Can you cite which 'law' was broken by someone reporting it to the media?

You don't appear to understand the rules of the sport - Contador has been caught A&B for a prohibited substance - the burden now rests with him to explain to the RFEC to try and show 'no significant fault or negligence'.

Fuyu Li positive A sample was publicly announced the day he was notified. He was suspended by his team and sacked when the B confirmed his A sample - he is still awaiting a hearing after 7 months.
How much can Contador sue for when he hasn't been sacked and is not even racing?

The UCI should have little involvement in this case.
They are responsible for the "Results management" - making sure procedures have been followed, checking for TUE's (no TUE for Clen) and informing the rider and ultimately the public.

 

[Race Radio]

some of you are just funny..

"he wanted to keep this quiet, *******!"

obviously that this wasnt suposed to come as a leak! this is how law works (or at least in theory)!!! the source of the leak should have been arrested (at least, processed). the case should have been solved first and then outsiders (like us) were informed about it. who are you to demand something like that (being informed about an ongoing investigation) ? contador isn't guilty (at least yet) and he has a chance (not that small as some of you think, maybe 50 50) of win this (use your brain and logic and you will now why).

if he get's free, someone will have to pay a large amount of €.. and the major guilty is the source of the leak and mags\newspappers that are "eating" this case (with theories (talking about those theories as facts, etc) etc) and contador's morale (if he isnt found guilty).

some of you are pathetic... yes, those that think that they are WADA scientists etc.. you know nothing (besides what wiki says).

After both A&B samples test positive the result is supposed to be made public, how you can you sue someone for following procedure?

 

[hektoren]

Can you cite which 'law' was broken by someone reporting it to the media?

You don't appear to understand the rules of the sport - Contador has been caught A&B for a prohibited substance - the burden now rests with him to explain to the RFEC to try and show 'no significant fault or negligence'.

Fuyu Li positive A sample was publicly announced the day he was notified. He was suspended by his team and sacked when the B confirmed his A sample - he is still awaiting a hearing after 7 months.
How much can Contador sue for when he hasn't been sacked and is not even racing?

The UCI should have little involvement in this case.
They are responsible for the "Results management" - making sure procedures have been followed, checking for TUE's (no TUE for Clen) and informing the rider and ultimately the public.

A big mouth, small d..k you got.
There is no law involved as long as we're only talking about results of tests, not about suspensions. No legal need to cover up plain results of tests.

Very little of the antidoping-processes you see has a foundation in "law", ie. in laws passed by the legislature in sovereign nations. What we do have, though, is rules and regulations in the governing bodies of sports, giving a framework for the day-to-day work in any given sport. It's obvious that labs should go by the book, and they quite simply didn't in Contadors case. An eager-beaver lab-technician spilling the beans on Contador to the press may be in breach of a signed confidentiality contract (normal fare for labworkers), and hence may be sued in civil court by his employer. With regard to the sports' rules and regulations, such a breach of security and deviance from the norm in a lab is to the detriment of the athletes' public image, and may also constitute the basis for a separate lawsuit with the athlete on one side and the lab/sports association on the other. I'm afraid McQuaid wins this round, as he goes by the book, (as far as I've been able to read and understand the pseudo-legalese pertaining to doping).
Until due process is followed, McQuaid should keep schtumm, but ARD forced his hand. Even this thread is a part of the fallout from that breach of confidentiality.

Fuyu Li's A-sample may have been leaked to the press also, (I haven't had this confirmed) but two wrongs still don't make a right.

 

[python]

the just issued wada report may indicate that the contador case is about to move forth within days.

they mentioned the case surreptitiously and refused to comment on the details.

i'm still reading the report... curiously, wada recommended the uci to do away with deligating the cases to the national federations of accused riders

that's a surprise.

completely missed by other commentators including the cn.

 

[hrotha]

i'm still reading the report... curiously, wada recommended the uci to do away with deligating the cases to the national federations of accused riders

that's a surprise.

completely missed by other commentators including the cn.

This is the first time I read an official report on this topic and therefore I don't understand the politics of anti-doping too well yet, so I apologize if the question is stupid: why is it a surprise? What's the significance of that?

 

[python]

This is the first time I read an official report on this topic and therefore I don't understand the politics of anti-doping too well yet, so I apologize if the question is stupid: why is it a surprise? What's the significance of that?

no need to apologize as you asked an important and valid question.

the surprise, at least for me, is in the 'common' feeling of many followers of the sport (including fans, this board members, wada insiders...) that the uci should be removed, isolated, made independent of the adjudicating anti-doping process. and here wada suggested something opposite. check the recent statements by saugy (lausanne lab diretor), bordry (afld) etc.

i'm not judging the value of the call (which could be meritorious had the uci had the anti-corruption reputation) but just commenting on the anti-intuitive nature of the call. btw, other international feds are doing fine with this wada model. it's just hard to imagine the corrupt uci in the role of an impartial cop.

 

[hrotha]

no need to apologize as you asked an important and valid question.

the surprise, at least for me, is in the 'common' feeling of many followers of the sport (including fans, this board members, wada insiders...) that the uci should be removed, isolated, made independent of the adjudicating anti-doping process. and here wada suggested something opposite. check the recent statements by saugy (lausanne lab diretor), bordry (afld) etc.

i'm not judging the value of the call (which could be meritorious had the uci had the anti-corruption reputation) but just commenting on the anti-intuitive nature of the call. btw, other international feds are doing fine with this wada model. it's just hard to imagine the corrupt uci in the role of an impartial cop.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm also on that wagon that calls for an independent body to handle the whole anti-doping process, but when I read that I didn't think anything of it because I believe the national federations are a problem too, as they're biased, and I guess I subconsciously saw the suggestion as a way to centralize the process before ideally handing it over to an independent body.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Very little of the antidoping-processes you see has a foundation in "law", ie. in laws passed by the legislature in sovereign nations. What we do have, though, is rules and regulations in the governing bodies of sports, giving a framework for the day-to-day work in any given sport. It's obvious that labs should go by the book, and they quite simply didn't in Contadors case. An eager-beaver lab-technician spilling the beans on Contador to the press may be in breach of a signed confidentiality contract (normal fare for labworkers), and hence may be sued in civil court by his employer. With regard to the sports' rules and regulations, such a breach of security and deviance from the norm in a lab is to the detriment of the athletes' public image, and may also constitute the basis for a separate lawsuit with the athlete on one side and the lab/sports association on the other. I'm afraid McQuaid wins this round, as he goes by the book, (as far as I've been able to read and understand the pseudo-legalese pertaining to doping).
Until due process is followed, McQuaid should keep schtumm, but ARD forced his hand. Even this thread is a part of the fallout from that breach of confidentiality.

Fuyu Li's A-sample may have been leaked to the press also, (I haven't had this confirmed) but two wrongs still don't make a right.

Firstly - C&C brought up "laws' pertaining to the whistleblower, I mentioned the 'rules' that are clear and have not been followed _ Mcquaid does not win this round, because as part of the 'Results Management' is that once the AAF has been issued it is up to the rider to offer an explaination to the failed test. The UCI (or WADA) should have no input until after a hearing by the RFEC.

As for Fuyu Li - it was not leaked. It was a statement from the UCI press office on the day he was notified of his AAF and just 1 month after his test.

Press release - Li Fuyu provisionally suspended

Date: 22.04.2010

Description: Earlier today, the UCI advised Chinese rider Li Fuyu that he is provisionally suspended. The decision to provisionally suspend Mr Fuyu was made in response to a report from the WADA accredited laboratory in Ghent indicating an Adverse Analytical Finding of Clenbuterol in a urine sample collected from him at an in-competition test during the Dwaars Door Vlaanderen on 23 March 2010.

The provisional suspension remains in force until a hearing panel convened by the Chinese Cycling Federation determines whether Mr Fuyu has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 21 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

Mr Fuyu has the right to request and attend the analyses of his B sample.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the UCI is unable to provide any additional information at this time.

UCI Press Services