Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Cloxxki]

Please allow the step back if it was handled previously.
In the month and change Berti had before the word got out, anyone know he offered some hair samples to free him of any doubt?
And supposing he's innocent, how would CAS rate the failure to do so? A free pass for missing out on a prime way to get himself cleared, or a bit less understanding? Are UCI/Spanish Union to ask for such hair samples, or is the athlete to suggest them, it being his DNA? Can The Spanish Union be at all trustd, should they have taken the hair? It could be a year-old hair from pre-clen days for all we know.

 

[craig1985]

Sounds good to me. There should be no right of appeal. If the rules state no signs of performance-enhancing drugs or procedures, then them's the rules you agree to ride under.



There is that. It's all a bit of a farce. But they can't allow someone who has been 'proven' (by the tests available) to have broken the rules to 'get away with it', because then there's no point in having any rules at all, and it becomes a free for all.

I can't agree with that, why should a murderer get the right to an appeal?

 

[meat puppet]

^ cause "really existing democracies" can, despite their shortcomings, typically stomach the appeal.

 

[Cloxxki]

Is anyone in the position to legally address the UCI's delay of announcing Contador's positive? Can any admissable motives even be thought up?

 

[roundabout]

There might be something in the WADA code or UCI regulations based on that code.

While yours are valid questions, a bigger concern of mine would be the support UCI provided by sending Zorzoli to Spain in August who as I seem to recall offered the food contamination theory and recommended De Boer as an expert.

 

[Walkman]

You are talking about within cycling, what a handful of riders will think and that has nothing to do with "public perception".

I am talking about the other 99.9999% of the world, those who do not watch cycling but get told that cyclists are the bad guys who dope and all their heroes are innocent and clean.

Option 1. they are told that Contador was cleared - he might be clean.

Option 2. They are told that he was found guilty - he is another cyclist who doped and the sport is lost. Lets watch something else.

There is no way that these people will think any better of cycling if the outcome is the latter.

Moreover people are open to the idea of athletes being clean., especially if they test + for minor substances and say they took something else which they did not know contained the PED. This defense always works.

What?! On what planet are you living?

None of them I have spoken to or from what I read in the newspaper seems to believe in AC's bull**** defence. It's more like:

"Oh, look in cycling they don't even sanction their riders anymore because of all the dope. It just a way of level the playing field."

That containment story is also bull****. It was spanish meat, not asian or mexican. There hasn't been any reports of Clen for 19 years!! Ho would you explain the revoke of the first decision? He was found gulity once, only to be cleard by the ****ing prime minister. Doesn't that tell you everything?!

Hell, Le Shawn Merrit was banned ant the entire athletics world is convinced he is clean and found it regretable that he was banned. What was his defense?that he ingested something that he did not know contained traces the PED
. They eventually even cut his ban.

Kolo Toure, everybody in England is 100% certain that he was innocent and should not have been banned. What was his defense - that he ingested something that he did not know contained traces the PED

What is Contadors defense? The very same. that he ingested something that he did not know contained traces the PED
And if people believe the others they can believe Contador.

Whether other cyclists are sent a message about doping or not has absolutely nothing to do with what the public perception of cycling will be.

Every other sport gives dopers free reign and they get to call themselves clean.

Contador was getting a lot less abuse from fans than people who were convicted. Even the commentators I heard treated him differently.

That was while the outcome was uncertain. If hes cleared these people wont suddenly become anti Contador.

Do you even follow the Track and field circuit? I do, and there are not many people believing in Meritt I can tell you that.

The thing you don't seems to understand or deliberately trying to avoid is that Contador already has gotten convicted by a spanish court. Hence, it's already proven, in a court of law, that the man is a doper and a cheater. That the sentence later was revoke, without any new evidence was revealed, is quite telling. The decision to rewoke the first verdict was politic and politic only. Or do you have any other explanations? If so, I'd like to hear them.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

The thing you don't seems to understand or deliberately trying to avoid is that Contador already has gotten convicted by a spanish court. Hence, it's already proven, in a court of law, that the man is a doper and a cheater.

You're wrong. Contador's contaminated meat defense was accepted, despite the one year ban that was issued. You may want to read up on the case.

 

[Walkman]

You're wrong. Contador's contaminated meat defense was accepted, despite the one year ban that was issued. You may want to read up on the case.

I have to admit it was some time ago I was reading about that sentence, so I may not have all the details correct but I thought I'd still got the whole picture figured out.

Anyway, I might be wrong, so if you could fill me in that would be great!

Are you saying that AC's contaminated meat defense was accepted and yet he was given a one year ban? How come?

Even so, how does that change the fact that he was convicted at first? From what I remember, he was given a one year ban but the ban was later rewoked without any new evidence.

Add the statement from Zapatero:

“there’s no legal reason to justify sanctioning Contador“

The only conclusion would be that the ban was rewoked because of politics. I mean, what the **** would Zapatero know about AC's case?!

 

[ChrisE]

The ban was overturned on appeal, based upon "evidence" of the tainted meat.

Walkman, with your argument there would never need to be an appeal process in a court of law. "Well, he was convicted at first so he is guilty".

 

[Walkman]

The ban was overturned on appeal, based upon "evidence" of the tainted meat.

Walkman, with your argument there would never need to be an appeal process in a court of law. "Well, he was convicted at first so he is guilty".

Hehe, well...we all know he is a doper!!

But still, wasn't there his defence the first time? Or do you mean he was convicted and then when he appealed he brought up this new "waterproof" evidence? Or was it just a case of appealing to a higher instance wich made a different judgement of the case?

Damn, pithy was right. I do need to read up on the case again.

 

[ChrisE]

Hehe, well...we all know he is a doper!!

But still, wasn't there his defence the first time? Or do you mean he was convicted and then when he appealed he brought up this new "waterproof" evidence? Or was it just a case of appealing to a higher instance wich made a different judgement of the case?

Damn, pithy was right. I do need to read up on the case again.

Yes, why don't you do that and report back.

 

[The Hitch]

Or do you have any other explanations? If so, I'd like to hear them.

Yes, the explenation is simple. I dont care about law or the politics or any other digressions to the discussion you try to bring in.

On both my posts I was talking about "Public's perception" of cycling, which was the issue which another poster brought in, and in my 2nd post I told you that that was the only issue I was discussiong.

So I really dont get why you now tell me about how guilty Contador is, about politics, ask me what I think of law.

That containment story is also bull****. It was spanish meat, not asian or mexican. There hasn't been any reports of Clen for 19 years!! Ho would you explain the revoke of the first decision? He was found gulity once, only to be cleard by the ****ing prime minister. Doesn't that tell you everything?!

Again, wtf is your point? yes the containment story is bull**** so what.

i said the defense can work, which it often does. So why are you lecturing me about how false his defense is????

None of them I have spoken to or from what I read in the newspaper seems to believe in AC's bull**** defence. It's more like

Well thats more like it. Finaly an on topic point.

What Ill ask is, how many people donated to the Floyd fund? How many people continue to defend Armstrong. How does the press talk about him. Every time they mention the dope they have to say "Armstrong denies all accusations".

In the same way if Contador is cleared all those sports papers and news so eager to crucify cycling all the time, will have to say "Contador was cleared of all charges" whenever they decide to talk about his doping. They wont be able to talk about the most succesful cyclist being a doper, about the 2010 Tour being overturned.

They wont.

And thus the public perception of Contador the clean rider, will spread.


BTW if you tell any of the 1% of football supporters who know that Guardiola failed a drugs test, about the case, they will all repeat about how he was cleared.


Fans want to believe athletes are clean. Thats why Contador gets such support from his motherland.

 

[GJB123]

Walkman, I really think you should read up in several threads here, because you are talking so much nonsense on the facts of the Contador case that it is difficult to decide whre to start to put you straight.

- Contador was found guilty of having a banned substance in his body. This he cannot en did not deny.
- He was never convicted to a 1 year ban. The Spanish cycling union suggested a 1 year ban (in the way a public prosecutor would offer a plea bargain or demand a certain punishment) instead of a 2 year ban because they already felt he ingested the Clen unknowingly.
- Contador did not agree to that suggested ban and a hearing was therefore held. During that hearing the disciplinary board of the Spanish cycling union became convinced that contamination was the most likely of 4 possible ways identified of Clen getting into his system.
- Proof of contaminated meat is not needed if one can establish sufficient doubt as to how Clen got into your system.
- This could still result in a reduced ban unless you can show that not only did you inadvertently and accidentally ingest the Clen but also that you cannot be faulted in any way for accidentally ingesting the Clen.
- The fact that Clen-contamination is infrequent, as you say, in Europe helped Contador to establish that he couldn't have known and therefore shouldn't receive any punishment at all.
- The disciplinary board agreed with him and UCI and Wada appealed that decision to CAS.
- That is where we are now.

Regards
GJ

 

[doolols]

- Proof of contaminated meat is not needed if one can establish sufficient doubt as to how Clen got into your system.

Is this correct? Because my understanding is that you need to show proof that you ingested it by accident, or that you were not liable for the presence of Clem in your body. Who knows what procedures are being used inside the teams? Does the UCI / WADA know? It's not up to them to show how it got in there, because they can't without an admission or video evidence, or something like that.

The burden of proof is initially on the governing body, to show that you have the stuff in your system, and that the proof was obtained through proper scientific procedures. So, he had the stuff in his system. He's never claimed he didn't. Under mitigation, he could claim it was accidental, but he can't prove that. This whole AC appeal thing just seems ar$e about face to me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Walkman, I really think you should read up in several threads here, because you are talking so much nonsense on the facts of the Contador case that it is difficult to decide whre to start to put you straight.

Ok, Walkmans opinion was simplistic however if you are going to berate them for talking "nonsense" then it would help if you introduced the "facts" and not your own irrelevant views.

- Contador was found guilty of having a banned substance in his body. This he cannot en did not deny.

This is where you subtly started to drift off course.
AC was not found guilty, he was found positive for a prohibited substance.
He could have accepted that ruling (& accepted a ban) or he can request a hearing.

- He was never convicted to a 1 year ban. The Spanish cycling union suggested a 1 year ban (in the way a public prosecutor would offer a plea bargain or demand a certain punishment) instead of a 2 year ban because they already felt he ingested the Clen unknowingly.

You make it sound that this was offered before any hearing - it wasn't.

- Contador did not agree to that suggested ban and a hearing was therefore held. During that hearing the disciplinary board of the Spanish cycling union became convinced that contamination was the most likely of 4 possible ways identified of Clen getting into his system.

Now you have compounded the previous paragraph.

Contador was heard by the Spanish Disciplinary Committee - and indeed they accepted the contamination story (easy to do when WADA & UCI didn't get to present a rebuttal) and then bizarrely ignored the rules and offered AC a multiple choice of punishments.

- Proof of contaminated meat is not needed if one can establish sufficient doubt as to how Clen got into your system.

Other way around - the athlete has to "establish" how the clen entered their system. There is no "sufficient doubt".

- This could still result in a reduced ban unless you can show that not only did you inadvertently and accidentally ingest the Clen but also that you cannot be faulted in any way for accidentally ingesting the Clen.

Sortof - if an athlete can "establish" that contamination was the most likely (Contador hasn't) then you can get a reduction for "No Significant Fault or Negligence"...

- The fact that Clen-contamination is infrequent, as you say, in Europe helped Contador to establish that he couldn't have known and therefore shouldn't receive any punishment at all.

.... if an athlete can "establish" that they bare "No Fault or Negligence" then they will not be sanctioned.

- The disciplinary board agreed with him and UCI and Wada appealed that decision to CAS.

Hmm, why did WADA (and even the UCI) appeal this decision??

- That is where we are now.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

Ok, Walkmans opinion was simplistic however if you are going to berate them for talking "nonsense" then it would help if you introduced the "facts" and not your own irrelevant views.

Nope, his opinion were downright wrong. Mine could be labelled oversimplified. There actually hardly any personal opinions or views in my post.

This is where you subtly started to drift off course.
AC was not found guilty, he was found positive for a prohibited substance.
He could have accepted that ruling (& accepted a ban) or he can request a hearing.

Now make up your mind. Am I subtly off course or downright wrong. As stated I can be accused oversimplifying the facts, but that is more not to do all the threads over again.

You make it sound that this was offered before any hearing - it wasn't.

Perhaps oversimplified to make it more palatable and in line with what people know of court room drama. So sue me for some poetic license
Now you have compounded the previous paragraph.

Contador was heard by the Spanish Disciplinary Committee - and indeed they accepted the contamination story (easy to do when WADA & UCI didn't get to present a rebuttal) and then bizarrely ignored the rules and offered AC a multiple choice of punishments.

At least I got something right, didn't I.

Other way around - the athlete has to "establish" how the clen entered their system. There is no "sufficient doubt".

You misinterpreted me. The athlete can establish sufficient doubt in order to establish no significant fault or negligence, usually resulting in a lower ban, or no negligence or fault, resulting in no ban.

Sortof - if an athlete can "establish" that contamination was the most likely (Contador hasn't) then you can get a reduction for "No Significant Fault or Negligence"...
.... if an athlete can "establish" that they bare "No Fault or Negligence" then they will not be sanctioned.

Again we are not in disagreement there.

Hmm, why did WADA (and even the UCI) appeal this decision??

You're kidding right?

Regards
GJ

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nope, his opinion were downright wrong. Mine could be labelled oversimplified. There actually hardly any personal opinions or views in my post.

Then why didn't you say that, instead of suggesting you were going to put the poster straight on "the facts of the Contador case".

Now make up your mind. Am I subtly off course or downright wrong. As stated I can be accused oversimplifying the facts, but that is more not to do all the threads over again.

I was very clear - I said you were subtly of course

Perhaps oversimplified to make it more palatable and in line with what people know of court room drama. So sue me for some poetic license
Now you have compounded the previous paragraph.



At least I got something right, didn't I.



You misinterpreted me. The athlete can establish sufficient doubt in order to establish no significant fault or negligence, usually resulting in a lower ban, or no negligence or fault, resulting in no ban.

Again no - the athlete must "establish" how the substance was in their system.

Here is the rule:

296 - No Significant Fault or Negligence.
If a License-Holder establishes in an individual case that he bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this section may be no less than 8 (eight) years.
When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced.

Again we are not in disagreement there.



You're kidding right?

Regards
GJ

You made it sound like the decision was the only obvious conclusion when all the facts were established - which begs the question why would WADA (& UCI) appeal such an "established" result?

 

[doolols]

So it comes down to:

AC had Clem in his system - guilty. Ban, 2 years.

AC tries to mitigate this by claiming that he was not responsible. If he could prove this (impossible, I would say), the ban could be halved. But not wiped. The fact he had it in his system is enough to make him guilty and be banned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So it comes down to:

AC had Clem in his system - guilty. Ban, 2 years.

AC tries to mitigate this by claiming that he was not responsible. If he could prove this (impossible, I would say), the ban could be halved. But not wiped. The fact he had it in his system is enough to make him guilty and be banned.

Nope, he can have any sanction eliminated.

There is Rule 296 - which is No Fault or Negligence:

If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of a Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under articles 306 to 312.

 

[doolols]

Nope, he can have any sanction eliminated.
There is Rule 296 - which is No Fault or Negligence:

Ah, so there's a subtle difference between: No Fault or Nagligence, and No Significant Fault or Negligence.

Thank you.

 

[CosmicRocker]

Fact: Contador tested positive on both A and B samples.

The rules:
Anti-doping rule violations
21. The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:
1. The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Rider’s bodily Specimen.

1.1 It is each Rider’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. Riders are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their bodily Specimens. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Rider’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping violation under article 21.1.

Warning:
1) Riders must refrain from using any substance, foodstuff, food supplement or drink of which they do not know the composition. It must be emphasized that the composition indicated on a product is not always complete. The product may contain Prohibited Substances not listed in the composition.

The link:

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1

He should be banned. If not, just do away with the rules and let any rider do absolutely anything he wants. If AC gets off, what good does it do to have rules in place at all?

 

[peloton]

Fact: Contador tested positive on both A and B samples.
He should be banned. If not, just do away with the rules and let any rider do absolutely anything he wants. If AC gets off, what good does it do to have rules in place at all?

Well, whatever decision CAS ends up with, I'll accept it. I'm pretty sure they can judge the case better than you do..... just saying.

 

[python]

Well, whatever decision CAS ends up with, I'll accept it.

i agree here with a qualifier...i'll accept it IF and WHEN i get a chance to read the original ruling. i'm not sure it's coming given the secretive nature of the hearing.

I'm pretty sure they can judge the case better than you do..... just saying.

i agree without any qualifiers.

ps.
fair enough for cosmicrocker to have an opinion but he's 20 threads too late. fact.

 

[Night Rider]

fair enough for cosmicrocker to have an opinion but he's 20 threads too late. fact.

About a year too late, unless anyone wanted to vent about time delays there has been nothing new of substance to debate in the last 10-11 months. cosmiccocker would do lawyers out of a job if deciding a case was as easy as selectively quoting two clauses from the rule book.

Right now the decision couldn't come soon enough. Whatever will be, will be. No argument from me.

 

[doolols]

Bicycling.com reckon he's bound for a 1 year ban.