Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[The Hitch]

Contador hearing starts tomorrow. Thread for updates I guess, and also predictions as to what the outcome will be.

My guess is that Andy Schleck will become the winner of the 2010 Tour de France and Contador will get a 1 year ban.

 

[Havetts]

I'm afraid it'll be a two year ban, won't be good for cycling but then again neither is the case dragging on for so long already.

 

[bicing]

i predict no ban, he'll keep his victory and schleck will whine in the press. saxo will increase sponsorship and cobo will be announced as contador's latest super-dom.

 

[Parrulo]

unfortunately i think he will get a ban, but i hope he gets away with it and is free to ride. . . i mean if he gets to the tour in revenge mode and giro form it should be fun to watch him destroy every1 in every terrain

 

[Elagabalus]

... My guess is that Andy Schleck will become the winner of the 2010 Tour de France and Contador will get a 1 year ban.

The likelihood of a ban was greatly increased by his lackluster performance in this year's Tour. You're only as good as your last race and the UCI can make money off the Evans-Schleck dual for 2012. Btw..are those two mutually exclusive? Is there a way he can be banned for a year and yet, still be declared 2010 TdF champion?

 

[GotDropped]

i predict no ban, he'll keep his victory and schleck will whine in the press. saxo will increase sponsorship and cobo will be announced as contador's latest super-dom.

I think you are right except for one thing... I don't think the Schlecks will whine about it to anyone. If anything, they will say something like they prefer to win on the road.

 

[craig1985]

I think if you're to ban Contador, banning him for 1 year now would be pointless, it will have to be a 2 year ban. I would be interested in what Michele Scarponi thinks right now, as he could end up the winner of 2011 Giro d'Italia.

 

[Merckx index]

My guess is that Andy Schleck will become the winner of the 2010 Tour de France and Contador will get a 1 year ban.

In theory, it can't be a one year ban. It has to be either nothing (contaminated meat) or two years (unable to prove it was contaminated meat). A one year ban would be appropriate only if CAS agreed it was contaminated meat, but that Bert was not entirely blameless for eating it (like the Colo decision). But if there is anything everyone agrees on, it's that the possibility of eating contaminated meat in Spain is so tiny that no athlete can be held accountable if it happens. This point has explicitly been part of the strategy of Bert's team, and WADA would be undercutting its own science if it did not agree.

I think some people would like to make it one year as a sort of compromise, but I don't know how they will explain their reasoning in that case. To announce a one year decision would make it blatantly obvious that the decision was political, not based on facts no matter how they were interpreted. Even if it were announced tomorrow that a new study showed that contamination is far more common in Spanish meat than previously thought, that the meat there is as bad as Mexico, Bert still could not be given a one year ban, because when he allegedly ate the meat, this was not known. Also, the fact that Nielson got off completely after eating Mexican meat, for which there would be a much better argument for a one year ban than Spanish meat, would be sure to be raised.

Is there a way he can be banned for a year and yet, still be declared 2010 TdF champion?

Don't see how. Any ban will have to include losing the 2010 title. If he gets a two year ban, he will presumably lose that along with all results for this past season, including the Giro. Then he will be eligible to ride the Vuelta next year.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I don't he gets a ban.

 

[hfer07]

IF he gets the ban-will his 6 months off the road while waiting for the RFEC verdict be discounted from the overall time length or the penalty starts after the fact?

 

[danjo007]

whats this unfortunately rubbish? he clearly broke the rules and deserves to be banned.

 

[The Hitch]

Don't see how. Any ban will have to include losing the 2010 title. If he gets a two year ban, he will presumably lose that along with all results for this past season, including the Giro. Then he will be eligible to ride the Vuelta next year.

Vuelta next year starts 2 days earlier than this year.

I remember that the deal was that if Contador got a 1 year ban he would miss the 2011 Vuelta by like 2 or 3 days due to the fact that his positive came on 23rd or something and the Vuelta started 20th the next year.

So if it starts 18th next year and they bacdate his ban to the date of the positive then he misses the Vuelta again, essentially getting a 1 and a half year suspension.

 

[Merckx index]

Vuelta next year starts 2 days earlier than this year.

I remember that the deal was that if Contador got a 1 year ban he would miss the 2011 Vuelta by like 2 or 3 days due to the fact that his positive came on 23rd or something and the Vuelta started 20th the next year.

So if it starts 18th next year and they bacdate his ban to the date of the positive then he misses the Vuelta again, essentially getting a 1 and a half year suspension.

Wait a minute. The samples were taken in the period July 21-25. Since he would lose his 2010 TDF title, the ban must begin then, mustn't it? You're right that he wasn't informed of the positive until August 24, which is just past the start date of the Vuelta, but if the ban were to begin then, they couldn't take either his TDF title or any other results he might have had between the giving of the samples and being informed of the positive.

From the WADA code:

10.8. In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results), all other competitive results obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

10.9. Except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Any period of Provisional Suspension (whether imposed or voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility imposed.

Bert’s original period of ineligibility began around the end of September 2010, when he agreed to a provisional suspension. If the ban were to begin then, then it would not even be close to ending for the 2012 Vuelta.

But…

10.9.1. Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Athlete or other Person, the body imposing the sanction may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another anti- doping rule violation last occurred.

This is what I was thinking. But who knows?

It does appear that Bert served four and a half months of the suspension prior to the RFEC report, at which point he was free to resume racing. If he is banned for two years, per above, the earliest he could resume racing would be July 25 2012, which would be in plenty of time for the Vuelta. In this case, all his 2011 results, including the Giro, would be taken away. This seems to me the most favorable situation for him if he were banned for two years.

OTOH, I suppose it's possible that he could be allowed to keep the 2011 results, with the remaining time on his ban beginning when the CAS decision was announced. Valverde's case was handled something like that I believe. That seems to be early January 2012, which would mean he would be out the entire season 2012, and up until near the end of August 2013--so he would miss the Giro and TDF that year, too, and it would be very close whether he could start the Vuelta.

Given a choice, I assume Bert would much prefer to lose all 2011 results, and be able to return late next year, maybe for the Vuelta.

 

[scullster46]

The likelihood of a ban was greatly increased by his lackluster performance in this year's Tour. You're only as good as your last race and the UCI can make money off the Evans-Schleck dual for 2012. Btw..are those two mutually exclusive? Is there a way he can be banned for a year and yet, still be declared 2010 TdF champion?

How does the likelihood of a ban increase due to his performance in this year's tour?

 

[The Hitch]

Wait a minute. The samples were taken in the period July 21-25. Since he would lose his 2010 TDF title, the ban must begin then, mustn't it? You're right that he wasn't informed of the positive until August 24, which is just past the start date of the Vuelta, but if the ban were to begin then, they couldn't take either his TDF title or any other results he might have had between the giving of the samples and being informed of the positive.

From the WADA code:






Bert’s original period of ineligibility began around the end of September 2010, when he agreed to a provisional suspension. If the ban were to begin then, then it would not even be close to ending for the 2012 Vuelta.

But…



This is what I was thinking. But who knows?

It does appear that Bert served four and a half months of the suspension prior to the RFEC report, at which point he was free to resume racing. If he is banned for two years, per above, the earliest he could resume racing would be July 25 2012, which would be in plenty of time for the Vuelta. In this case, all his 2011 results, including the Giro, would be taken away. This seems to me the most favorable situation for him if he were banned for two years.

OTOH, I suppose it's possible that he could be allowed to keep the 2011 results, with the remaining time on his ban beginning when the CAS decision was announced. Valverde's case was handled something like that I believe. That seems to be early January 2012, which would mean he would be out the entire season 2012, and up until near the end of August 2013--so he would miss the Giro and TDF that year, too, and it would be very close whether he could start the Vuelta.

Given a choice, I assume Bert would much prefer to lose all 2011 results, and be able to return late next year, maybe for the Vuelta.

I remember I found it unfortunate on Berts behalf that he would essentially lose 1 and a half seasons, but it was very clear in last years discussions that a ban would be judged as starting on the day he was informed of the positive, not on the day it was taken.

If they are backdating it now maybe they will backdate it to July.

 

[ElChingon]

I just hope its the final case either decision! I have some hard cold cash on the line so from that perspective I hope he's banned but from how stupid this whole case has gone I hope he gets a weekend ban next month or he has to wear a no-guns logo on his jersey. The UCI/WADA/and the Spanish Cycling Governing body make these cases drag on to the point of making them pointless anyway. Yet, other cases are handed in one day Really fair.

 

[Maxiton]

Contador hearing starts tomorrow. Thread for updates I guess, and also predictions as to what the outcome will be.

My guess is that Andy Schleck will become the winner of the 2010 Tour de France and Contador will get a 1 year ban.

I'm afraid it'll be a two year ban, won't be good for cycling but then again neither is the case dragging on for so long already.

i predict no ban, he'll keep his victory and schleck will whine in the press. saxo will increase sponsorship and cobo will be announced as contador's latest super-dom.

The only given in all this is that Schleck will whine. About something.

So far, we have the following predictions:

1) One year ban, w/ forfeiture of 2010 Tour win.

2) Two year ban (w/ presumably, forfeiture of 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro?)

3) No ban, no forfeiture.

I think we need a poll.

In theory, it can't be a one year ban. It has to be either nothing (contaminated meat) or two years (unable to prove it was contaminated meat). A one year ban would be appropriate only if CAS agreed it was contaminated meat, but that Bert was not entirely blameless for eating it (like the Colo decision). But if there is anything everyone agrees on, it's that the possibility of eating contaminated meat in Spain is so tiny that no athlete can be held accountable if it happens. This point has explicitly been part of the strategy of Bert's team, and WADA would be undercutting its own science if it did not agree.

I think some people would like to make it one year as a sort of compromise, but I don't know how they will explain their reasoning in that case. To announce a one year decision would make it blatantly obvious that the decision was political, not based on facts no matter how they were interpreted. Even if it were announced tomorrow that a new study showed that contamination is far more common in Spanish meat than previously thought, that the meat there is as bad as Mexico, Bert still could not be given a one year ban, because when he allegedly ate the meat, this was not known. Also, the fact that Nielson got off completely after eating Mexican meat, for which there would be a much better argument for a one year ban than Spanish meat, would be sure to be raised.



Don't see how. Any ban will have to include losing the 2010 title. If he gets a two year ban, he will presumably lose that along with all results for this past season, including the Giro. Then he will be eligible to ride the Vuelta next year.

All of which sounds fair and well reasoned and makes good sense - if only anything of this case followed suit. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and that means they could come up with any crazy decision, with no real explanation.

So I don't really have a clue what they'll decide or what the outcome will be. If they're following the rules, he should probably be banned. But that outcome would be unfair, in my estimation, as Contador's sample should never have been singled out to be sent off for such extraordinary scrutiny in the first place. They didn't do that to catch a cheat, they did it to satisfy a corrupt agenda. I hope he gets off with a slap on the wrist or no sanction at all.

 

[L'arriviste]

I think he'll get off, for the reason (scientific probability) described by Merckx index.

But after so much time and argument, there's now a big difference between how things are and how they look. Almost any outcome will fail to remove the perceptions of a) a grey area around Clenbuterol and b) procedural inconsistency.

Whatever the legal outcome, the Contador case will be remembered as a communications catastrophe.

 

[just some guy]

I have a feeling UCI want him to get off

WADA has other ideas and has a major card to play...

 

[hrotha]

The owner of the butcher shop speaks:
http://www.diariovasco.com/v/20111121/deportes/ciclismo/solomillo-estaba-regla-toda-20111121.html

He's going to Lausanne, too. He speaks about everything being in order, about traceability and what not. His meat always comes from the same supplier, in Elgoibar, although he says the meat itself wasn't Basque.

 

[Poursuivant]

I have a feeling UCI want him to get off

WADA has other ideas and has a major card to play...

Whats the major card? I agree, I think he will be let off unfortunately.

 

[python]

this thread is 2 months too early and 18 months too late...as the decision wont be known until january 2012 and, so far, there's little that hasn't appeared in the dozen+ previous threads on the same topic.

personally i'm confident that cas is independent enough to arrive at a factual and evidence-based decision rather than a political one.

my own assessment of the publicly available evidence (of which i kept a detailed and careful record) is 50/50.

if contador shows with 51% probability that there was no likely transfusion (and wada fails to overturn it) he walks.

wada's refusal to continue investing in the plasticizer test make contador's legal arguments weightier. otoh, if there were glitches in his blood passport (which was never made public and supposedly ashenden will testify to that) contador may receive 2 years.

a number of critical factors that could shed more light remain unknown...

The owner of the butcher shop speaks:
http://www.diariovasco.com/v/2011112...-20111121.html

He's going to Lausanne, too. He speaks about everything being in order, about traceability and what not. His meat always comes from the same supplier, in Elgoibar, although he says the meat itself wasn't Basque.

to the red - that sounds like a new information slightly favourable to contador's arguments.

specifically, as i understood the article, the butcher says, 'our steak is always from the same supplier located in elgoibar...the only certainty is that the meat is from outside the Basque Country, the meat is from another region, i can not say [for sure] whether it's from de Leon, Salamanca or even in Catalonia, certainly not from Basque Country"

iow, if the tribunal accepts as fact that contador indeed ate the meat purchased from the basque butcher on 21 july, the fact that the meat was procured from the supplier the butcher normally does not do business with, increases the probability of evading local clenbuterol controls

 

[Von Mises]

I dont get this attitude "it is unfortunate", "it is loss for cycling". How many people here really believe that Contador is clean rider?

 

[Cimber]

I dont get this attitude "it is unfortunate", "it is loss for cycling". How many people here really believe that Contador is clean rider?

Doesnt matter what we believe. If every ride who the clinic suspected being doped would be banned we would only be left with a few poor riders. Considering the history of cycling there will always be doubt regarding every star there is. Especially a guy as good as Contador. Luckily ppl arent banned based on that.

 

[roundabout]

t

to the red - that sounds like a new information slightly favourable to contador's arguments.

specifically, as i understood the article, the butcher says, 'our steak is always from the same supplier located in elgoibar...the only certainty is that the meat is from outside the Basque Country, the meat is from another region, i can not say [for sure] whether it's from de Leon, Salamanca or even in Catalonia, certainly not from Basque Country"

iow, if the tribunal accepts as fact that contador indeed ate the meat purchased from the basque butcher on 21 july, the fact that the meat was procured from the supplier the butcher normally does not do business with, increases the probability of evading local clenbuterol controls

I don't understand.

As far as I remember one of Contador's arguments in the Spanish hearing was the insufficient testing for clenbuterol in the Basque Country. Now with a bit more digging it seems that the meat didn't come from there.

Second point, the butcher says himself that the meat comes from the same supplier. I don't see where it says that on this occasion the meat was bought from a different supplier.