Official 1 year ban

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
hfer07 said:
a one year ban means a couple months of hard preparation for what is coming:

Vuelta 2011
Giro 2012
Tour 2012


the triple crown that nobody has ever attained:)

Haters will hate even more:D
Hinault already did that, Giro 82, TDF 82, Vuelta 83

It has to be the same year!
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
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?

My information is fact. I respect the riders, managers owners.

They are proven to be dirty. From the horses mouth. To much guilt from association.

"I don't have to show you no stinking badges. "

Remember that one from John Houstons Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

I am not a rat Like Floyd Landis!
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Well, I can tell you one thing Sammy Sanchez is definitely on: crazy pills.

Ever watch that guy descend in the rain? It's like an amalgamation of Paolo Savoldelli and Johnny Knoxville.
lol Good stuff.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
warmfuzzies said:
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.
I am speaking from the standpoint of pro sports pro cycling in particular.
It is a promoted product and cyclists are only chess pieces, including the rider formerly known as Lance.

A prime example of sports production is comparing ToC with the Vuelta. No way Vuelta is a greater ride any way you slice it.

I go along with the BS the production because I want to see cycling grow as a spectator sport in the US.

To keep cycling interest pro racing,let Contador ride. Besides, he is a cute fella. The only one I remember bad mouthing him was Thor Hammer man
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
flicker said:
I am speaking from the standpoint of pro sports pro cycling in particular.
It is a promoted product and cyclists are only chess pieces, including the rider formerly known as Lance.

A prime example of sports production is comparing ToC with the Vuelta. No way Vuelta is a greater ride any way you slice it.

I go along with the BS the production because I want to see cycling grow as a spectator sport in the US.

To keep cycling interest pro racing,let Contador ride. Besides, he is a cute fella. The only one I remember bad mouthing him was Thor Hammer man
Neighhhh, Flicka. We know you don't believe this but let's say you do. This is one of those moments where the riders could actually stop looking like pawns and help change the sport. That so many "stars" continue to argue the status quo (see the pointed headed Wiggans) only shows how little creative and courageous thought exists among the current "elite" peloton. Time to form a whole new organization. We could call it Lance's Foundation for Truth in Cycling since he helped it to the tipping point.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
absurd decision

paradoxically, i am equally convinced that had i been in wada’s or contador’s shoes, i’d appeal the rfec's 1 year.

as i noted several times, the one year ban contradicts strict wada code as written. it’s a political decision and therefore it can not and should not stand.

cas should strike it down… and free the man or put him away for 2 years.

…and pass a recommendation that wada code needs further revisions - both as regards loosening it’s strict liability rules and introducing thresholds for the substances (like clenbuterol) that have legally mandated mrl (maximum residual level in europe - for example it’s .1 ug/kg for clen) and thus could be found in athletes body due to 'incredible acts' of normal food consumption..
 
Jul 3, 2009
305
0
0
Good news: 1st AC will NOT race 2011 Tour.

2nd: He will most likely lose 2010-Tour-title.

Bad news: Not sure yet if UCI and/or WADA will appeal to CAS.

I have no trust in the UCI or the Spanish federation. That the latter even handed down a ban for AC shows that he IS guilty as hell and there was absolutely no chance to get him out of this. But I have some trust in WADA. Hope that at least they will appeal to CAS. And CAS works fine, I guess (Valverde?).
 
Jun 21, 2010
308
0
0
flicker said:
To keep cycling interest pro racing,let Contador ride. Besides, he is a cute fella. The only one I remember bad mouthing him was Thor Hammer man
Another ridiculous argument. To an American, Contador is a boring celebrity -and I use the word celebrity loosely. He infrequently speaks English in interviews, he's got Floyd Landis good looks, and he has zero US media focus. You may be chasing his cleats, but there are load of guys in the peloton with more charisma, looks, and ability to grow N American (and frankly global) cycling interest than Contador. The doping sanctions only exacerbate the situation. Re-post in 12 months and see if anyone cares.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
SiAp1984 said:
snip

... a ban for AC shows that he IS guilty as hell and there was absolutely no chance to get him out of this.
i need to correct you, lack of full acquittal by rfec shows that contador could not or did not produce sufficiently exculpatory evidence
or in wada speak
he could not compile a convincing picture as to how how clenbuterol got into his body.


in other words,
-he does not have test results of his dinner mates like the german ponger had
-he does not have any positive tests on beef from the butcher or the store he claims sold the meat

by my interpretation, this means wada will easily win in cas
 
warmfuzzies said:
Another ridiculous argument. To an American, Contador is a boring celebrity -and I use the word celebrity loosely. He infrequently speaks English in interviews, he's got Floyd Landis good looks, and he has zero US media focus. You may be chasing his cleats, but there are load of guys in the peloton with more charisma, looks, and ability to grow N American (and frankly global) cycling interest than Contador. The doping sanctions only exacerbate the situation. Re-post in 12 months and see if anyone cares.
And North Americans are the only ones interested in cycling?

Susan
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
SiAp1984 said:
I have no trust in the UCI or the Spanish federation. That the latter even handed down a ban for AC shows that he IS guilty as hell and there was absolutely no chance to get him out of this. But I have some trust in WADA. Hope that at least they will appeal to CAS. And CAS works fine, I guess (Valverde?).
Well no. The one year ban actually means they believed or at least portraying they believed AC's defence but hands were tied on having to hand out a ban.

Python summed it up correctly

cas should strike it down… and free the man or put him away for 2 years.

…and pass a recommendation that wada code needs further revisions - both as regards loosening it’s strict liability rules and introducing thresholds for the substances (like clenbuterol) that have legally mandated mrl (maximum residual level in europe - for example it’s .1 ug/kg for clen) and thus could be found in athletes body due to 'incredible acts' of normal food consumption..
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
python said:
i need to correct you, lack of full acquittal by rfec shows that contador could not or did not produce sufficiently exculpatory evidence
or in wada speak
he could not compile a convincing picture as to how how clenbuterol got into his body.


in other words,
-he does not have test results of his dinner mates like the german ponger had
-he does not have any positive tests on beef from the butcher or the store he claims sold the meat

by my interpretation, this means wada will easily win in cas
Yeah, that's what should happen. Whether it does or not.........who knows.
 
Oct 31, 2010
172
0
0
Seems a bit weak a 1yr ban when 2yrs should be the norm.
But hey ho.
I'll look forward to him hammering the Vuelta.
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
Will be appealed and 2 yrs applied.

Cannot justify mitigating circumstances when there is no reliable proof of unintentional consumption. Cannot justify a reduction in the standard 2 yr ban when athletes of similar results, and similar claims have failed to gain a reduction in sanction.

Contador needs to grit his teeth and accept that he is going to be sidelined for 2 yrs, as surely WADA will appeal. Nothing to be done. Either shut up and cede the sentence or go the global thermonuclear route and join up with Floyd Landis to "Lance" the boil of doping that ruins the face of cycle racing.

Do it Alberto. Give us all a shred of hope.

We will cheer you if you expose Pepe, Bruyneel and their cohorts. Do it. Show us you have the courage of a champion, just as Landis did. Final nail in the coffin of truth.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
And North Americans are the only ones interested in cycling?

Susan
"That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father's Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth. "

"We do big things.

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That's how we win the future. "

- Obama
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Normally I’m pretty happy, even gleeful in some cases, when dopers get caught and banned. In this case, however, I’m ambivalent.

The nature of the analytical findings (ie miniscule concentrations) and the lack of longitudinal data is a bit concerning to me. The rather inconsequential nature of the drug is also perplexing. If AC was doping I would have thought given his performance he would been using something a bit more effective.

The contaminated meat story is weak and seems unlikely but it is not beyond the realms of possibility. People cite an absence of positives in EU testing but all that testing is directed at detecting potentially toxic levels in meat. Personally I would really need to see analytical data from other prior samples to be convinced.

The plasticizer story is unconfirmed and even the scientific evidence on that as a valid indicator is a bit wishy-washy.
 
Perhaps this has already been noted before: Riis, Pantani, Heras, Hamilton, Landis, Ullrich, Basso, Cobra, Valverde, Contador...I know I've not mentioned everyone. All GT contenders, all admitted to or were found positive, or in any case banned over the last 15 years or so. And during an entire 7 year Tour streak, while competing against most of these world class riders on dope, indeed some had been farm raised on his team, nothing ever happened (despite 6 99 positive samples for EPO) to Lance.

Surly he must have been clean! Surly there is nothing afoul with how the UCI handels its anti doping campaign! Surly none of the other contenders, not mentioned, were doped! Surly Schleck was riding on bread and water last year too!

This is not justice, but a total sham! A total ridiculous obscene farse!

And I make no excuses for Contador, but how can we place one rider under indictment when so many others are guilty of the same crime and feel that justice is being done?

How can we except that the greatest fraud in the history of sport, till now at least, passes with a "clean bill," while the greatest tallent in recent decades is removed conveniently from his thrown for a few grams of something that undoubtedly his competitors were on, or on something? This is like Pantani all over again, only worse, because after everything else we have had to put up with since then!

I'm starting to find no other alternative, but to side with Torri.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Anyone here with some knowledge of Spanish?

El Paisgives the reason for the 1-year ban, but one translation machine I used said is was because he could prove the clenbuterol was in the beef, the other translation said he couldn't prove it:


Así pues, en la decisión de suspender un año a Contador ha influido, sobre todo, el informe de la AEA, que si bien por un lado reconocía que una cantidad tan pequeña de clembuterol no tiene efectos fisiológicos sobre el rendimiento, por otra parte señala que la documentación científica presentada por la defensa del corredor no prueba que el solomillo que ingirió pudiera estar contaminado —el clembuterol, por sus efectos anabolizantes, sirve para engordar aceleradamente el ganado— y ni siquiera que, aunque así fuera, una ingesta de uno o dos filetes pudiera provocar el positivo. "La posible prueba de su inocencia, y al mismo tiempo arma del crimen se los había comido", señalan fuentes de la AEA. "Los estudios científicos nunca son pacíficos, sino interpretables".
 
It says the ruling is based on the Spanish Antidoping Agency's report which says that (1) the traces of clenbuterol found couldn't have any physiological effects on his performance, (2) Contador didn't prove the steak was contaminated, (3) Contador didn't prove eating one or two steaks could result in a positive. They add that scientific studies are always open to interpretation.

Now, El País might be simplifying things, because as I understand (1) is irrelevant and (2) and (3) suggest a full 2-year bans should be applied.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
hrotha said:
It says the ruling is based on the Spanish Antidoping Agency's report which says that (1) the traces of clenbuterol found couldn't have any physiological effects on his performance, (2) Contador didn't prove the steak was contaminated, (3) Contador didn't prove eating one or two steaks could result in a positive. They add that scientific studies are always open to interpretation.

Now, El País might be simplifying things, because as I understand (1) is irrelevant and (2) and (3) suggest a full 2-year bans should be applied.
Thanks!

But I think El País is awair of that, in the next paragraph they pretty much state it was a political solution:

El fundamento jurídico de la propuesta de sanción se basa en el principio de responsabilidad objetiva del Código Mundial Antidopaje, que hace a cada deportista responsable último de cuanto se halle en su organismo. La carga de la prueba recae en el acusado, no en el acusador. Fuentes jurídicas consultadas mostraron, sin embargo, su extrañeza porque la sanción fuera de un año, un plazo "político". "O dos o ninguno", dicen. "Uno está reservado para los casos como los de contaminación de suplementos. Aunque por más cuidado que tomen, los deportistas están avisados de que hay suplementos alimenticios contaminados con anabolizantes y pueden dar positivo. Pero, ¿cómo una persona que come carne en Europa, con tantos controles, puede pensar que está contaminada? No sería lo mismo si fuera carne china o de México, donde se permite el clembuterol para engordar ganado". El ciclista italiano Alessandro Colò recibió una sanción de un año por clembuterol en la pasada Vuelta a México, que achacó a la carne contaminada. Sin embargo, al ciclista chino Li Fuyu su federación le sancionó con dos años de suspensión.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY