Official 1 year ban

[Anonymous]

1 year and stripped of 2010 TdF seems fair to me as they can't prove the transfusion that er may have taken place

Too bad Schlecket is now the winner like he is mr clean <facepalm>

thats what annoys me even more.

schleck doesnt deserve the title as he is as bad as AC but now looks to be the UCI supported wonderboy

and he doesnt deserve it because he wheelhugged for days, and if not for cancellara he wouldnt have even finished second.

 

[royalpig180]

Schleck has been talking the big game during this whole process--"I won't consider myself the TdF winner even if Berto is banned. I lost it on the road...". I wonder if he will keep this up once all appeals are done and Contador is still banned. I'd bet he'll bask in the glory of a tour champion then. He can stay out of the spotlight.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, who actually does deserve the win? You're not going to tell me Menchov, are you?

As to longer sanctions. I don't think that's the real problem. The issue is not the severity of punishment, it's the certainty of it, or lack there of. Hence, I don't think longer bans are going to be much of a deterrent when most dopers know they're not likely to be caught in the first place.

Agree that there could be better lines drawn up though for sanctions. Some could be more severe, some less. But as we all know, we need a total flush at the UCI, that's really the first, and biggest step.

 

[rzombie1988]

I'm in favor of longer bans. A 4 year ban is harsh but it proves the point. I think anyone would be pretty much finished after that.

 

[Altitude]

Just to clarify, that wasn't his story. He wasn't the only person to eat it. Others on the team ate it, but they were not tested.

Which is even more ridiculous, as that would mean Vino was the only one to not eat it.

 

[runninboy]

This whole thing stinks. If the federation is not going to follow the rules then why even have rules & federations?
When the rules state that if you have a zero tolerance drug present in your body and you are responsible for everything that goes into your body and the rule is a two year ban for such offense and the only way to reduce such sentence is by proving unintentional ingestion. How is it that not being able to prove anything translates to a reduction in sentence?

that is clearly not what the rules state.
the burden of proof is on the accused, it was not met. And it seems to me such a willful ignorance of the rules by the national federation might point to a substantial bias which the federation should itself be sanctioned for.
Add to these events that the President of the Federation has gone on record saying he supports the athlete in question and i really think the greater problem here is the federation itself.

Riders come and go, but when the people who are enforcing the rules decide to make up their own rules chaos ensues.

Good for situation comedy not good for sport

 

[El Pistolero]

This whole thing stinks. If the federation is not going to follow the rules then why even have rules & federations?
When the rules state that if you have a zero tolerance drug present in your body and you are responsible for everything that goes into your body and the rule is a two year ban for such offense and the only way to reduce such sentence is by proving unintentional ingestion. How is it that not being able to prove anything translates to a reduction in sentence?

that is clearly not what the rules state.
the burden of proof is on the accused, it was not met. And it seems to me such a willful ignorance of the rules by the national federation might point to a substantial bias which the federation should itself be sanctioned for.
Add to these events that the President of the Federation has gone on record saying he supports the athlete in question and i really think the greater problem here is the federation itself.

Riders come and go, but when the people who are enforcing the rules decide to make up their own rules chaos ensues.

Good for situation comedy not good for sport

Because you have read Contador's defence right?

At least use something called logic in your arguments.

 

[The Hitch]

The fact is that his sentence is really a 7 month ban...Do people really think that this is fair in a perfect world, Contador' should be banned for two years and for drugs like EPO, testosterone should have a 4 year ban. That will really teach them. I was amazed how quick Vino & Ricco came back to cycling. It felt like it came by very quickly.

Well what do these bigger sentences achieve? People will still dope. No one will say, oh im willing to risk my career, my reputation, my life by doping when the ban is 2 years, but i wont if its 4 years.

The only solution as i see is to make life bans, and amnesty for those who reveal everything. EVERYTHING. Turn on their doctors, suppliers, everyone. THen your let back in. Maybe a year ban, but you let back in. If it emerges you lied at any point, you get taken out and every result you ever had erased.

 

[Porphyry]

Banning someone under these circumstances is injust.

I don't understand the hate-fest element of this thread. People are suffering, the sport is suffering.

I've learned a lot by coming to The Clinic, but overall, it's not worth sorting through the hateful remarks. To those of you that express rational thoughts on all sides of the issue, thanks.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Thanks all, for helping me clean up the thread by giving me time to do it. My excuses that the offending post took a couple of hours before it was taken down.

 

[veganrob]

One year is about what I thought he would get. Nobody should be surprised by that. Really, the only ones breaking the rules more than the riders are the ones that are supposed to be enforcing them. This whole thing smelled from the git go.
I doubt WADA will or anyone else will protest decision. AC will return next August and win Vuelta in September. However what really ****es me off is that Andy is now the favorite for TdF. Hope Basso beats his punk ***.

 

[flicker]

One year is about what I thought he would get. Nobody should be surprised by that. Really, the only ones breaking the rules more than the riders are the ones that are supposed to be enforcing them. This whole thing smelled from the git go.
I doubt WADA will or anyone else will protest decision. AC will return next August and win Vuelta in September. However what really ****es me off is that Andy is now the favorite for TdF. Hope Basso beats his punk ***.

I like your passion for cycling. Good luck with Basso!

 

[veganrob]

I like your passion for cycling. Good luck with Basso!

I'm just tellin it as I see it. Didn't say I like it. At least I'm not going down with Lance. C'mon man.

 

[skidmark]

thats what annoys me even more.

schleck doesnt deserve the title as he is as bad as AC but now looks to be the UCI supported wonderboy

and he doesnt deserve it because he wheelhugged for days, and if not for cancellara he wouldnt have even finished second.

Doping aside, 'he wheelhugged for days' doesn't really seem like a valid argument for Contador over Schleck, as Schleck won 2 stages by attacking and Contador won zero and attacked less.

On topic, yeah 1 year is no surprise, given the minute amount.

 

[El Pistolero]

Doping aside, 'he wheelhugged for days' doesn't really seem like a valid argument for Contador over Schleck, as Schleck won 2 stages by attacking and Contador won zero and attacked less.

On topic, yeah 1 year is no surprise, given the minute amount.

Schleck won one stage while attacking.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I'm in favor of longer bans. A 4 year ban is harsh but it proves the point. I think anyone would be pretty much finished after that.

It may seem harsh but a two year ban is too 'light' on the doper. Harsh, maybe but it will help eradicate dopers.

Well what do these bigger sentences achieve? People will still dope. No one will say, oh im willing to risk my career, my reputation, my life by doping when the ban is 2 years, but i wont if its 4 years.

The only solution as i see is to make life bans, and amnesty for those who reveal everything. EVERYTHING. Turn on their doctors, suppliers, everyone. THen your let back in. Maybe a year ban, but you let back in. If it emerges you lied at any point, you get taken out and every result you ever had erased.

I am not saying people won't dope but riders will think about it. A 4 year ban imo is ultimately a lifetime ban. And if riders want to comeback from the ban then they might not be willing to take a chance with PED's anymore. Please remember that I said 'might'. Because it takes so long for these cases to be sorted out, a 2 year ban isn't that long. 4 years in the life of an athlete and when you include getting back up to the top level is ultimately a life time ban imo.

 

[flicker]

It may seem harsh but a two year ban is too 'light' on the doper. Harsh, maybe but it will help eradicate dopers.



I am not saying people won't dope but riders will think about it. A 4 year ban imo is ultimately a lifetime ban. And if riders want to comeback from the ban then they might not be willing to take a chance with PED's anymore. Please remember that I said 'might'. Because it takes so long for these cases to be sorted out, a 2 year ban isn't that long. 4 years in the life of an athlete and when you include getting back up to the top level is ultimately a life time ban imo.

I would support this. However, if you took for instance your favorite team the one you support, Cadels' international squad BMC.

Parity. I could take a number of riders off that team and tag them with a 4 year ban. For past sins, but starting right now. Say your guy Cadel is as clean as the driven snow, always has been and always would be.

I still ban the riders for their doping rumors, blood urine, off the chat bio-passport, unlikely wins, riding on teams with "full program" questionable managers owners etc, questionable business practices etc.

Where oh where will Cadel get the support in any way if all those 4 yr.bans 4 bombs. Thats your guy Cadel you have to support him. We all know what goes on wink, wink nod nod.

 

[danjo007]

1 year is not enough for that dirtbag. for being a denial-whiney b!tch he should get 4.

 

[danjo007]

oh, btw el pistolero... hahahahhahahahahahahah

 

[auscyclefan94]

I would support this. However, if you took for instance your favorite team the one you support, Cadels' international squad BMC.

Parity. I could take a number of riders off that team and tag them with a 4 year ban. For past sins, but starting right now. Say your guy Cadel is as clean as the driven snow, always has been and always would be.

I still ban the riders for their doping rumors, blood urine, off the chat bio-passport, unlikely wins, riding on teams with "full program" questionable managers owners etc, questionable business practices etc.

Where oh where will Cadel get the support in any way if all those 4 yr.bans 4 bombs. Thats your guy Cadel you have to support him. We all know what goes on wink, wink nod nod.

I am not sure why I am responding to this but I am anyway.

So you would ban someone who raced on a team who in the past had dopers on it? How could you ban someone on a rumour? Do you know what a rumour is? You would ban someone because they won a race that they shouldn't of necessarily have? That would make cycling a very boring sport if riders who were expected to win did win.

 

[warmfuzzies]

1-year suspension was the opening bid by the Spanish. It will be appealed, and standard 2-year ban will be applied. Spanish were trying to balance supporting their local doper and looking like complete homers. Fittingly, Contador can kiss a lot of potential career records good-bye. Perhaps some posters will also be inclined to change out their 'pistolero' gear, user names, avatars, and underwear. The king is dead, long live the king.

 

[flicker]

I am not sure why I am responding to this but I am anyway.

So you would ban someone who raced on a team who in the past had dopers on it? How could you ban someone on a rumour? Do you know what a rumour is? You would ban someone because they won a race that they shouldn't of necessarily have? That would make cycling a very boring sport if riders who were expected to win did win.

What I understand you saying is riders deserve a 4 year ban, first offense, lifetime ban for the second. In a sport as tough as cycling and with its dirty as hell history, such as people jumping on trains to win tour stages in the past, I think you have to cut a litle leeway.

With Contador a one year ban is appropriate. It may not be fair, but he is a big draw. Same with teams, the rules need to bend a bit.

 

[auscyclefan94]

What I understand you saying is riders deserve a 4 year ban, first offense, lifetime ban for the second. In a sport as tough as cycling and with its dirty as hell history, such as people jumping on trains to win tour stages in the past, I think you have to cut a litle leeway.

With Contador a one year ban is appropriate. It may not be fair, but he is a big draw. Same with teams, the rules need to bend a bit.

Could you please answer the questions I asked? Cut a little leeway? I don't think so.

 

[hfer07]

a one year ban means a couple months of hard preparation for what is coming:

Vuelta 2011
Giro 2012
Tour 2012
& Why not
Vuelta 2012



Haters will hate even more

 

[warmfuzzies]

With Contador a one year ban is appropriate. It may not be fair, but he is a big draw. Same with teams, the rules need to bend a bit.

This is a ridiculous argument that indirectly supports doping. Whoever wins GT's will become media/fanboy magnets. Without Contador, another star will rise. Whether that star is clean or a more clever doper is an open and worthy question.