Tyler swore on Tugboat's grave, didn't he?
well aware that journos in their rush to re-print (with few exceptions) typically dont get the technical details right, i went back to the original el mundo article written by ramos, a contador lawyer.sniper said:latest news is AC's team will indeed appeal and play the Gasquet-card:
interesting.python said:well aware that journos in their rush to re-print (with few exceptions) typically dont get the technical details right, i went back to the original el mundo article written by ramos, a contador lawyer.
sure enough, if google was a friend )), i found interesting tad bits missed by virtually all outlets but to my knowledge confirmed for the first time by a contador lawyer...among them:
-the uci's package to rfec contained analysis of 4 possible routes of how clen got into his system
-the uci delay with passing the package to rfec had to do with the evaluation of each of the 4 routes by world's (wada ?) experts
- ramos's transparent allusion (not a direct mention !) that a blood transfusion possibility was among the possibilities evaluated by the uci/wada('haematologists were among the experts')
- spanish national anti-doping agency ran a similar evaluation on rfec's request, not clear of the results
-contador's strategy will be to prove that 3 of 4 possibilities are less likely than meat contamination.
i found it curious there was no mention of a hair test...
i read the sz article right away after it was printed and found no significance news or opinions there.sniper said:snip.......
It was also discussed in the German Süddeutsche Zeitung, yesterday.
true,python said:i read the sz article right away after it was printed and found no significance news or opinions there.
but this ramos article alluding to a possibility of a defence based on excluding a bplood transfusion possibility promisses to be verrrrry interestingggggg
i savour a moment when contador's blood passport values reach cas a we will be treated to their rigorous legal-scientific examination as to why they are 'indicative' (or not) and if the alleged plasticizer test was anything worth the thunder it created.
interesting times ahead !
Wow, thanks, I completely missed that. I always think this is one of the more interesting aspects of doping, basically every ex-teammate of Contador has got a kill switch, and they can destroy Contador's reputation whenever they choose, the only problem is that they have to destroy their own reputation in the proces. You just have to get some one desperate enough so they've got nothing left to lose...sniper said:true,
Still, they highlighted the fact that Etxebarría was on the same Liberty Seguros team when OP unfolded. Etxebarría and others got punished, and AC remained silent.
Also, the fact that this tweet got picked up by one of Germany's largest newspapers is interesting. Just wonder if we may hear more from Etxebarría if Spanish journalists pick up the story and decide to ask him directly.
EDIT: I see cyclingnews also picked up on it yesterday:
python said:these are correct numbers as i recall them. and they are very significant for contador's contamination theory because in at least two cases the elapsed time between alluded to timing of food administration and a timing of giving the positive sample was longer than in contador’s case.
For ex, german scientists estimated that botcharov’s sample that contained more clen than contador’s was given 3-5 days before the fateful dinner in china whereas contador was negative for clen a night before the positive.
GJB123 said:I am afraid I do not quite understand what you mean. I guess you mean that the positive in other cases was 3-5 days after the fatefull dinner instaed of before. Because if was positive before eating the dinner, me thinks he would really have a problem.
Does this different time frame imply that Contador got the Clen into his system in another way or at another time or both? Was Botcharov also tested in the time frame between eating the meal and testing positive?
i think it's pretty stupid actually. if backdated on aug 24 and suspended 2 years wouldn't he miss a 3rd TdF too? truthfully, the dates have some big consequences but he's flirting with long term disaster in other ways and i think it's stupid for other reasons. a 1 year ban is the best scenario he could have ever hoped for. he can publicly twist and spin the RFEC decision to mean they essentially accepted his contamination defense and he doesn't think an appeal will be successful for obvious reasons of strict liability even tho he is innocent. it would have forced WADA to appeal and would have appeared as though they are hammering him unnecessarily. he would have been positioned as the victim where now he is positioned as throwing a temper tantrum. his PR sucks. he's practically following the landis playbook every step of the way and we know how that turned out.El Pistolero said:He has nothing to lose. A one year ban back dating from 24th august is the same as a 2 year ban. Not appealing would be a declaration of him being a doper. WADA would have appealed anyway, he just takes the initiative now. Now he can keep up the "I'm really innocent" act for the media.
He's not stupid hence he appealed before WADA could appeal.
Landis tested positive for huge amounts of testosteron. Not comparable.lean said:i think it's pretty stupid actually. a 1 year ban is the best scenario he could have ever hoped for. he can publicly twist and spin the RFEC decision to mean they essentially accepted his contamination defense and he doesn't think an appeal will be successful for obvious reasons of strict liability even tho he is innocent. it would have forced WADA to appeal and would have appeared as though they are hammering him unnecessarily. he would have been positioned as the victim where now he is positioned as throwing a temper tantrum. his PR sucks. he's practically following the landis playbook every step of the way and we know how that turned out.
from de boers paper (p. 7/11) we get that contador (allegedly) ate the contaminated steak some short time AFTER he gave a clen-negative urine sample - both events occurring within hours on 20 july. The positive sample was given next day, on 21 july. according to de boer‘s pharmacokinetic model, this jives well with clenbuterol’s half life, the timing of the meat consumption, and the extremely sensitive instrumentation applied to detect the minute amounts.GJB123 said:Python, I see you are back online in this thread. A number of pages back you had a very interestng post that I am trying to understand better.
I think from a PR-point of view it is a case of f****d if you and f****d if you don't. If he doesn't appeal the AC-haters will no doubt see that as an admission of guilt and him taking the "easy" way out. If he does appeal, the AC-haters say he is doing a "Landis" and throing a temper tantrum. He can't win either way.lean said:not comparable? if you say so.
regardless, you don't think it would have been smarter to force the UCI/WADA to appeal?
No, he did not; the amounts were well within normal. The tests were deemed to show that there were metabolites of testosterone derived from plants, therefore he had taken artificial testosterone.El Pistolero said:
RFEC didn't think they could get away with an acquittal? It's all politics, not science. The science is window dressing.python said:of cause, the blood transfusion theory can not be excluded by these considerations. but together with a ‘spotless’ blood passport it may. ramos hints they’ll use blood passport. then, i ask ,why rfec did not acquit him ?
something is missing…
Landis had a skewed Test/Epitest ratio. Both steroids are supposed to be in the body, although when they looked closer it turned out to be exogenous in origin.El Pistolero said:
you and landis are the remotest thing on my mind when i evaluate tid bits as they become available.dbrower said:RFEC didn't think they could get away with an acquittal? It's all politics, not science. The science is window dressing.
It's curious to see Python taking paths similar to ones that have been trod in defense of Landis, while slagging Landis elsewhere.