Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Cimber]

I am now officially 100% pessimistic about the outcome of this hearing. Contador is going to get off scot free.

Well I am neither pessimistic or optimistic cos I am sure CAS will make the right decision. No reason to hope for a ban if he is innocent and no reason to hope for aquitance if he is guilty.

 

[Cimber]

Yep.

1. AC does not deny there was clen in his system.

2. He can't prove it came from contaminated beef.

No further questions. All this stuff about plasticizers and which day what shows up is nonsense. WADA / UCI don't have to prove that he transfused.

Thing is he doesnt have to prove it. He "just" has to establish that is was the most likely source of the contimination, which is hard enough^^

 

[python]

It's tricky gleaning information from a single news source. The above passage could mean…

I see your point.

however, though english is not my native, had i been the article’s writer, i would have chosen less ambiguous wording (fitting in one sentence) to convey each of the interpretations you pointed out. a unanimous rejection of ashenden by 3 out of 3 arbiters could still be the case but not necessarily.

Maybe Python can help here - I think what WADA may have objected to is that Ashenden may have been there to analysis the Bio Passport, not the plasticizer test? Just a thought.

yeah, i have mentioned just that in several posts above - ashenden was supposed to be there as a blood passport expert for wada, NOT a plasticizer test expert. for ex see posts ## 543, 551, 559, 564...being a blood passport expert ashenden, by extension, is an expert on various modes of blood transfusions. iow, wada needed his testimony to beef up it’s theory of a 2-step blood transfusion on 2 different days.

specifically, the way i understood the article, one of the reasons wada wanted him there was to explain to cas that the alleged plasma transfusion on july 21 did not cause a plastisizer spike b/c plasma transfusers don’t store plasma in plasticizer-containing bag (this btw, is not necessarily the case as audran explained)

i speculate, contador’s lawyers objected to that on several grounds: one, ashenden is NOT a plasticizer expert and thus should not be admitted to talk about plasticizers. two, wada theory is improbable because (i) it lacks blood passport evidence and (ii) it’s too narrowly and conveniently constructed to fit only one of the several known and possible blood transfusion procedures. - like, for example, whole blood or injection of rbcs followed by saline in stead of plasma as wada described etc etc…

iow, i reckon, cas considered ashenden misplaced and w/o previously written credible data (like suspicious blood profiles on 20, 21, 22 july) to provide a probative evidence on a wada theory.

i’m only interpreting what i read in the article.

 

[sniper]

Well I am neither pessimistic or optimistic cos I am sure CAS will make the right decision. No reason to hope for a ban if he is innocent and no reason to hope for aquitance if he is guilty.

We all know contador was doped to the gills. the only problem is whether it can be proven. CAS will set him free if the proof against him is too weak. Indeed that would be the right decision, from a legal point of view. But it obviously doesn't mean AC is innocent, as you seem to suggest.
Everybody with some common sense (i.e. everybody who saw him race against Rasmussen) knows he's not.
So I'm with Jamsque on this one. An acquittal would be sad news.
No ban = no clean cycling in the near future.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thing is he doesnt have to prove it. He "just" has to establish that is was the most likely source of the contimination, which is hard enough^^

Pretty much - AC has to "establish' to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the arbitrators that in the "balance of probabilities" the clenbuterol came from the steak.

Contator has provided a receipt - which merely establishes that meat was bought, where and when. It is that level of detail that could undo him - as his theory can be checked.

 

[Benotti69]

Pretty much - AC has to "establish' to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the arbitrators that in the "balance of probabilities" the clenbuterol came from the steak.

Contator has provided a receipt - which merely establishes that meat was bought, where and when. It is that level of detail that could undo him - as his theory can be checked.

With the level of detail given by Contador and the ability to trace meat to its source he cant get off, as that would have meant the farmer would have been nabbed for doping his meat and that is not taken lightly in EU farming as it damages reputations that are bigger than a small sport or one of its stars.

I cant see how he can get off.

 

[hfer07]

oh god - Was not established a year ago that CAS will not accept the Transfusion & Plasticizer test scenario at all?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I see your point.

however, though english is not my native, had i been the article’s writer, i would have chosen less ambiguous wording (fitting in one sentence) to convey each of the interpretations you pointed out. a unanimous rejection of ashenden by 3 out of 3 arbiters could still be the case but not necessarily.


yeah, i have mentioned just that in several posts above - ashenden was supposed to be there as a blood passport expert for wada, NOT a plasticizer test expert. for ex see posts ## 543, 551, 559, 564...being a blood passport expert ashenden, by extension, is an expert on various modes of blood transfusions. iow, wada needed his testimony to beef up it’s theory of a 2-step blood transfusion on 2 different days.

Yes, I read your earlier posts (but couldn't remember who said what) but my point was that Ashenden was there to talk specifically about the Bio passport - not plasticizers.

I con't see how WADA could complain about plasticizers being left out - but I could understand they would be peeved if Bio Passport data was not allowed.

specifically, the way i understood the article, one of the reasons wada wanted him there was to explain to cas that the alleged plasma transfusion on july 21 did not cause a plastisizer spike b/c plasma transfusers don’t store plasma in plasticizer-containing bag (this btw, is not necessarily the case as audran explained)

i speculate, contador’s lawyers objected to that on several grounds: one, ashenden is NOT a plasticizer expert and thus should not be admitted to talk about plasticizers. two, wada theory is improbable because (i) it lacks blood passport evidence and (ii) it’s too narrowly and conveniently constructed to fit only one of the several known and possible blood transfusion procedures. - like, for example, whole blood or injection of rbcs followed by saline in stead of plasma as wada described etc etc…

iow, i reckon, cas considered ashenden misplaced and w/o previously written credible data (like suspicious blood profiles on 20, 21, 22 july) to provide a probative evidence on a wada theory.

i’m only interpreting what i read in the article.

Which is why I am asking - as I think we are in agreement that some things here do not make sense. One being you rightly pointing out any decision would be from the panel not just one person.

 

[python]

I con't see how WADA could complain about plasticizers being left out - but I could understand they would be peeved if Bio Passport data was not allowed.

i think you mean by not allowing ashenden to testify cas not allowed bio-passport, right ? because, no articles i saw in any language mentioned that cas specifically excluded whatever blood biopassport data was brought up by wada/uci. it's entirely possible, but i have not read it.

what i think may have happened with regard to contador's blood passport is this - again i posted this theory before and admit it's a mere speculation.


recall, rfec's final ruling mentioned that several contador's and rfec experts found no prob with passports broadly speaking. that is, not only the ruling we were let on lacked appendixes with ACTUAL blood testing dates and data around the dates of interest - 20,21,22 july- it was very general and extended to prior years as not pointing to problems.

however, broad blood passport data is of little relevance because we want to know if contador transfused rbcs on the 20th and plasma on the 21. that's the proposed wada theory. again, it's so far an unknown if the uci conducted any BLOOD PASSPORT tests on those days.

if they did not, they, the wada, are out of luck. if they did, and the data is inconclusive b/c of the sophisticated micro dosing (200-300 ml injections), they are out of luck again. conversely, both cased would play into contador's hands even if he doped. what i was speculating previously, was that ashenden likely could not produce the specific SUSPICIOUS data from contadors passport. if he could, even a remote little spike in haemoglobin or percent reticulocytes coinciding with plasticizer spike on the 20th, contador would be doomed.

all this is necessary b/c the plasticizer test was deemed too unreliable on it's own.

 

[Cimber]

We all know contador was doped to the gills.

No u/we dont. We/u can feel convinced that he was but we dont know for sure. Dont really like posts that try to present something as a fact which isnt. For me personally the CAS ruling will be the end of it.

 

[errbud]

Judging by the way wada are now behaving suggests to me they think he is going to be acquitted which in turn makes me think he will be acquitted I may have read it wrong but thats my hunch ...

 

[will10]

Am I the only dreading him being cleared and WADA then appealing it yet again? They seem to be suggesting along those lines in the press recently.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i think you mean by not allowing ashenden to testify cas not allowed bio-passport, right ? because, no articles i saw in any language mentioned that cas specifically excluded whatever blood biopassport data was brought up by wada/uci. it's entirely possible, but i have not read it.

what i think may have happened with regard to contador's blood passport is this - again i posted this theory before and admit it's a mere speculation.


recall, rfec's final ruling mentioned that several contador's and rfec experts found no prob with passports broadly speaking. that is, not only the ruling we were let on lacked appendixes with ACTUAL blood testing dates and data around the dates of interest - 20,21,22 july- it was very general and extended to prior years as not pointing to problems.

however, broad blood passport data is of little relevance because we want to know if contador transfused rbcs on the 20th and plasma on the 21. that's the proposed wada theory. again, it's so far an unknown if the uci conducted any BLOOD PASSPORT tests on those days.

if they did not, they, the wada, are out of luck. if they did, and the data is inconclusive b/c of the sophisticated micro dosing (200-300 ml injections), they are out of luck again. conversely, both cased would play into contador's hands even if he doped. what i was speculating previously, was that ashenden likely could not produce the specific SUSPICIOUS data from contadors passport. if he could, even a remote little spike in haemoglobin or percent reticulocytes coinciding with plasticizer spike on the 20th, contador would be doomed.

all this is necessary b/c the plasticizer test was deemed too unreliable on it's own.

Well there was no WADA or UCI present to rebut ACs defense of the Bio Passport at the RFEC hearing.

Speculating - I think Ashenden was only there for the Passport, to show (possible) extraction earlier and transfusion duting the Tour.
From CN back in November:

It had earlier been anticipated that the so-called “plasticizer” test, in which residues of the plastic used in blood bags are detected in urine, would form part of the case against Contador. However, according to L’Équipe, there were already traces of plasticizer present in Contador’s sample of July 20, the day before his positive test for Clenbuterol.

WADA and UCI will instead focus on Contador’s biological passport data before and during the 2010 Tour de France, with Michael Ashenden among those to have analysed the rider’s blood values. L’Équipe reports that particular attention will be paid to Contador’s haemoglobin level in May 2010. The French newspaper claims that it rose to 17.9g/l in May 2010, a spike from its usual level of between 16 to 16.5g/l.

 

[ferryman]

We all know contador was doped to the gills. the only problem is whether it can be proven. CAS will set him free if the proof against him is too weak. Indeed that would be the right decision, from a legal point of view. But it obviously doesn't mean AC is innocent, as you seem to suggest.
Everybody with some common sense (i.e. everybody who saw him race against Rasmussen) knows he's not.
So I'm with Jamsque on this one. An acquittal would be sad news.
No ban = no clean cycling in the near future.

Not sure I'm getting your point here. Why would either result have an influence on doping in the peloton Are you suggesting AC is THE cancer out there just now so if he is banned it suddenly becomes clean because every other rider thinks they no longer need to dope or are you saying no ban and everyone else has to keep on their programme just to compete with AC.

The former is pie in the sky and the latter is just cycling as we know it and will continue to know it probably for ever.

Ban/No ban = no change to anything.

 

[doolols]

Pretty much - AC has to "establish' to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the arbitrators that in the "balance of probabilities" the clenbuterol came from the steak.

But then, doesn't that switch the burdon of 'proof'? There is a possibility, no matter now small, that the clenbuterol came from the beef. If his legal team can show that the doping evidence is flawed (plasticizer, dates etc), then isn't there a danger that the beef scenario becomes more likely? Therefore he goes free?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But then, doesn't that switch the burdon of 'proof'? There is a possibility, no matter now small, that the clenbuterol came from the beef. If his legal team can show that the doping evidence is flawed (plasticizer, dates etc), then isn't there a danger that the beef scenario becomes more likely? Therefore he goes free?

No - AC has to "establish" how he had clenbuterol in his system.
Merely showing that doping is not possible would not satisfy that criteria. Simply put, it is up to AC to show how he has clen (and that it was accidental), not the other side.

 

[python]

WADA and UCI will instead focus on Contador’s biological passport data before and during the 2010 Tour de France, with Michael Ashenden among those to have analysed the rider’s blood values.

as i mentioned, imo any data before the 2010 tour would only be relevant if there could have been shown a pattern, a string, of unexplained abnormal blood data.

L’Équipe reports that particular attention will be paid to Contador’s haemoglobin level in May 2010. The French newspaper claims that it rose to 17.9g/l in May 2010, a spike from its usual level of between 16 to 16.5g/l.

the data reported by l'equipe is unequivocally abnormal if true. is it unexplained ? we can only guess b/c it was never made public.

at the time i speculated, that a base line of 16 to 16.5 g/l for haemoglobin can only be explained by: (i) consistent blood doping with top ups or (ii) blood uci dispensation/permit.

we never heard anything of bert having a permit yet it's a possibility and another challenge for cas to validate.

 

[Woody22]

All this talk over all this time.

WHAT A FARCE!!!

Contador tested positive to a banned substance which carries with it a ban of 2 years. This just happened to occur during the a rest day during the Tour. How coincidental.

Is there a chance that he ate contaminated meat that led to this result? Yes.
What are the odds that this is what happened? Not sure, but only an ignorant fool would seriously argue that it was the most likely cause.

It is looking more and more likely that he will get away with it though. I can only continue to hope that justice prevails and this 18 month con job is finally put to rest.

It's bad enough Valverde is back... I'm finding it incresingly difficult to take any Spanish cycling result at face value.

 

[doolols]

Is there a chance that he ate contaminated meat that led to this result? Yes.
What are the odds that this is what happened? Not sure, but only an ignorant fool would seriously argue that it was the most likely cause.

It is looking more and more likely that he will get away with it though.

I can't understand how you can put those statements together. How will he get away with it? Are you saying that the CAS are ignorant fools?

 

[Woody22]

I can't understand how you can put those statements together. How will he get away with it? Are you saying that the CAS are ignorant fools?

I have little faith in the integrity of organisations and individuals in those organisations that should be beyond reproach.

This statement is not fair on CAS as I know nothing about them or their history. But in my case, you can blame FIFA (Blatta), ICC (cricket), and closer to home, the Australian Federal Government (Gillard ).

What I a am really trying to say is that I believe Contador is guilty, but his profile and the resources that have been applied to this case, and the influence that these things can bring, will see him escape punishment.

From my perspective, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[doolols]

Dr.Maserati said:

AC has to "establish' to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the arbitrators that in the "balance of probabilities" the clenbuterol came from the steak.

So if AC is paying an expensive legal team, he thinks he can get off.

There's no doubt that there is a chance, a slim chance, that there was some clenbuterol in the steak he ate. We had some percentages some time ago. No, it's not South America, where the chances are considerably higher, but clenbuterol has been measured in EU steak.

What the AC team are trying to show is that the doping couldn't happen, because the positive plasticizer and clen tests weren't synchronous, which is what you would normally expect. What they're trying to do is to shoot a hole in the UCI/WADA evidence, and therefore make the contamination the most likely, under the circumstances.

And don't forget that the UCI brought the case to CAS, since CA only did 6 months. So isn't it incumbent upon the UCI / WADA to show the reasons why the previous decision was wrong. Don't they have to shoot a hole in the contamination defence, and thereby show that doping was more likely?

Apologies for being dumb.

 

[danjo007]

did anyone else test positive to clen (on his team who may have eaten this meat) or was it "special just for him meat brought all the way from another country" and no one else was allowed any of it?

any case he's gotta GO!
~he's a pathetic cry baby sadly trying to weasel out of a positive result, and hiding behind his corrupt government & sporting association; dragging something on so long, hopefully we will forget how serious this was, and just laugh it off as a poor cyclist caught up in poor farming practices!

 

[doolols]

any case he's gotta GO!
~he's a pathetic cry baby sadly trying to weasel out of a positive result, and hiding behind his corrupt government & sporting association; dragging something on so long, hopefully we will forget how serious this was, and just laugh it off as a poor cyclist caught up in poor farming practices!

LOL - can't disagree with any of that!

 

[Publicus]

Dr.Maserati said:


So if AC is paying an expensive legal team, he thinks he can get off.

There's no doubt that there is a chance, a slim chance, that there was some clenbuterol in the steak he ate. We had some percentages some time ago. No, it's not South America, where the chances are considerably higher, but clenbuterol has been measured in EU steak.

What the AC team are trying to show is that the doping couldn't happen, because the positive plasticizer and clen tests weren't synchronous, which is what you would normally expect. What they're trying to do is to shoot a hole in the UCI/WADA evidence, and therefore make the contamination the most likely, under the circumstances.

And don't forget that the UCI brought the case to CAS, since CA only did 6 months. So isn't it incumbent upon the UCI / WADA to show the reasons why the previous decision was wrong. Don't they have to shoot a hole in the contamination defence, and thereby show that doping was more likely?

Apologies for being dumb.

To your last question, no. CAS is reviewing this essentially de novo, otherwise, WADA would have been prohibited from raising the plasticizers issue all together (it wasn't included in the dossier forwarded to RFEC by UCI).

 

[Publicus]

did anyone else test positive to clen (on his team who may have eaten this meat) or was it "special just for him meat brought all the way from another country" and no one else was allowed any of it?

Others ate it, but he was the only one tested.