Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Moose McKnuckles]

It was dumb to go to Israel anyway. A moron could have figured out that it was going to cast suspicions on Barak's impartiality.

But ok, let's say Riis needed new sponsors and that the whole thing is a silly coincidence.

You're almost there.

 

[Nilsson]

Careful - if the standard for Ricco is that his passport didn't look great the same was said about Contador:


To the blue - JV admitted on here that while they was an interest in Contador they had not seen his Biological Passport.

Personally I wouldn't quote Mart Smeets when it comes to facts. More importantly: the signing of Ricco has been vetoed because of his passport (which implicates an OFF-score higher than 116.7 (1:100 false positive, and set as limit in most internal doping programs: Damsgaard, Garmin/HTC, Mapei Center) but probably not exceeding the UCI passport limit, which allows to open a direct case...

All we know about Contador is that he has very high levels, but probably just one somewhat remarkable (hemoglobin) spike in his passport, allegedly in May 2010, which probably has caused him his 'five' - but no further notion in the IO-report. Also he hasnt had any problems in the Damsgaard programs (e.g. Gusev) etc.

On Vaughters. I always thought the deal was more or less sealed, so that he could switch teams right before the Tour. It would probably also explain his pretty strong believe/support in Contador. I mean: he isn't just a fanboy, is he?

 

[sniper]

You're almost there.

cheers moose, hope you had a good time scrolling the web for that pic.
glad you care

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Personally I wouldn't quote Mart Smeets when it comes to facts. More importantly: the signing of Ricco has been vetoed because of his passport (which implicates an OFF-score higher than 116.7 (1:100 false positive, and set as limit in most internal doping programs: Damsgaard, Garmin/HTC, Mapei Center) but probably not exceeding the UCI passport limit, which allows to open a direct case...

I don't give any credence to what Smeerts said either.

However I was curious as to how you can look at a suggestion about Ricco and a dodgy passport (one I have never read) and yet when the same is suggested of AC there is a difference.

All we know about Contador is that he has very high levels, but probably just one somewhat remarkable (hemoglobin) spike in his passport, allegedly in May 2010, which probably has caused him his 'five' - but no further notion in the IO-report. Also he hasnt had any problems in the Damsgaard programs (e.g. Gusev) etc.

Really? How do 'we' know?

Is this based on fact or opinion? Because you say its an allegation against Contador, yet Gusev had problems, even though he was cleared.

On Vaughters. I always thought the deal was more or less sealed, so that he could switch teams right before the Tour. It would probably also explain his pretty strong believe/support in Contador. I mean: he isn't just a fanboy, is he?

My thoughts were any strong belief JV may have had disappeared when he saw (or was refused access to) ACs BP - but thats just my opinion.

 

[roundabout]

Personally I wouldn't quote Mart Smeets when it comes to facts. More importantly: the signing of Ricco has been vetoed because of his passport (which implicates an OFF-score higher than 116.7 (1:100 false positive, and set as limit in most internal doping programs: Damsgaard, Garmin/HTC, Mapei Center) but probably not exceeding the UCI passport limit, which allows to open a direct case...

All we know about Contador is that he has very high levels, but probably just one somewhat remarkable (hemoglobin) spike in his passport, allegedly in May 2010, which probably has caused him his 'five' - but no further notion in the IO-report. Also he hasnt had any problems in the Damsgaard programs (e.g. Gusev) etc.

On Vaughters. I always thought the deal was more or less sealed, so that he could switch teams right before the Tour. It would probably also explain his pretty strong believe/support in Contador. I mean: he isn't just a fanboy, is he?

Somewhat remarkable?

Is there a reason why you would downplay that particular incident?

According to an expert opinion that that particular set of values has a 1 in 7000 chance of occurring naturally.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

cheers moose, hope you had a good time scrolling the web for that pic.
glad you care

I'm kidding, man. Don't take it personally. Everyone knows Contador is as clean as a baby's diaper. I still like the guy though.

I'm not convinced that Saxo's Israel trip had to do with influencing one of the judges, though you never know, I suppose. There would likely be more surreptitious means of achieving that goal, rather than giving Vacca a reason to moo.

 

[BroDeal]

(which implicates an OFF-score higher than 116.7 (1:100 false positive, and set as limit in most internal doping programs: Damsgaard, Garmin/HTC, Mapei Center)

Off tangent, but what the odds of Leipheimer's 132.8 OFF-score?

 

[python]

Off tangent, but what the odds of Leipheimer's 132.8 OFF-score?

i'll have to double check..

from memory, assuming normal distribution the original methodology criteria was that off-score of 133 indicated
99.9% probability of blood doping (1 in 10,000)?

i'll let you extrapolate the difference between 133 and 132.8

 

[Granville57]

I must say it's been mildly amusing to see all the flak that has been directed at sniper when seemingly far less credible speculation has gained much more traction here in the past.

Lets hope [Becca] doesn't have a passport and never leaves Luxemburg because if he goes to France we must assume that he is buying a victory at the Tour.

Did you really have to go and open that door?

another interesting caveat is that ashenden is a strong advocate of wider limits for haematocrit than the current 50%. iow, he advocates 52-53% - just where contador is alleged naturally.
...i'll get back to this later....

Please do, python. That's the first I've heard of that. Interesting.

 

[hrotha]

I thought the biological passport had rendered the traditional hematocrit cap obsolete. Oh well.

 

[Nilsson]

However I was curious as to how you can look at a suggestion about Ricco and a dodgy passport (one I have never read) and yet when the same is suggested of AC there is a difference.

Because I know Ricco's signing was vetoed because of his passport by at least two different team doctors and given a negative advice at another team by the team's medical adviser. I don't know (read, or heard) something like that about Contador.

Really? How do 'we' know?

Is this based on fact or opinion? Because you say its an allegation against Contador, yet Gusev had problems, even though he was cleared.

I don't know that for sure, of course. But I've never heard anyone about it, he's never had a problem in any team, his 'five' - thanks to the spike in may - doesn't look highly problematic (nor was there a mention in the IO-report) and also the quotes of his passport analyses in the RFEC-report don't seem to ring the alarm bells.

About Gusev. He was like Ricco, apparently. He exceeded the internal (Damsgaard) limits (OFF-score ≥ 116,7 or 1:100 false positive) but didn't exceed the UCI limits (at least an OFF-score ≥ 125,6 or 1:1000 false positive) so got cleared...

My thoughts were any strong belief JV may have had disappeared when he saw (or was refused access to) ACs BP - but thats just my opinion.

I've never seen any negative comments or significant/outspoken doubts from Vaughters on Contador. Even in the clenbuterol case he seems to be understanding and to give him the benefit of the doubt.. The same for David Millar and others, who (from experience) seem to have a completely different opinion than Offredo/Chavanel...

 

[infeXio]

New delays may occur:

http://www.feltet.dk/nyheder/1700-tals_matematiker_afgoer_contadorsag/

Due to the lack of sufficient production of concrete evidence from both sides, a whole new interpretation of the probabilities might be used in order to reach a verdict - be it acquittal or au contraire.

 

[Nilsson]

Somewhat remarkable?

Is there a reason why you would downplay that particular incident?

According to an expert opinion that that particular set of values has a 1 in 7000 chance of occurring naturally.

That spike has nothing to do with that statistic (in particular). The fact that Contador has high values is indeed rare. But what would you expect from one of the best cyclists out there? That he's average? It's like screwing Einstein over his abnormally high IQ. You're not as good because you're normal, but because you're not. More important is that for him the values are normal, which we don't know, but can only assume until proven otherwise. As of today he never exceeded any limits, not even with the hemoglobin 'spike' in may (which leeked and therefore seems to be a rare lead, but not significant enough, and definitely not downplaying his 'normal' - but indeed for Average Joe very exceptional - values)...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Your views stem from an earlier simplistic theory that CAS are like UCI or IOC - they are not, as there are quite a lot of safegaurds within their system as they are subject to international law.

There may be rules, But who is enforcing the rules? It's not a rhetorical question. If there is no body willing/able to challenge an organization like CAS, then CAS does as it pleases. How much transparency is there in CAS? How often does CAS's activities get challenged? I'm reminded of the IOC. Subject to rules and yet rife with corruption.

It is a 3 person panel - each side selects one and CAS select the head.
There is a lot at steak in this case - some precedents will be made, and to avoid further appeal any decision must be watertight.

My understanding is Contador gets one, UCI AND WADA gets one and then CAS selects the third. We know the UCI and WADA are operating with completely different doping agendas. How is the three-person panel fair when WADA is constrained by the UCI's managed-doping agenda?

My point being, we would all like to trust CAS, but the way the process is set up favors dopers. I'm not going full 9-11 conspiracy either. While my knowledge of CAS is limited, it is obvious the UCI want this case to end with a negative and WADA has to deal with that agenda during the hearing. Maybe it is analogous to a three-legged race where the partner wants someone else to win?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because I know Ricco's signing was vetoed because of his passport by at least two different team doctors and given a negative advice at another team by the team's medical adviser. I don't know (read, or heard) something like that about Contador.



I don't know that for sure, of course. But I've never heard anyone about it, he's never had a problem in any team, his 'five' - thanks to the spike in may - doesn't look highly problematic (nor was there a mention in the IO-report) and also the quotes of his passport analyses in the RFEC-report don't seem to ring the alarm bells.

About Gusev. He was like Ricco, apparently. He exceeded the internal (Damsgaard) limits (OFF-score ≥ 116,7 or 1:100 false positive) but didn't exceed the UCI limits (at least an OFF-score ≥ 125,6 or 1:1000 false positive) so got cleared...






I've never seen any negative comments or significant/outspoken doubts from Vaughters on Contador. Even in the clenbuterol case he seems to be understanding and to give him the benefit of the doubt.. The same for David Millar and others, who (from experience) seem to have a completely different opinion than Offredo/Chavanel...

Not being smart here - but are you suggesting that you "heard" from people these different stories? Or are these statements in the public domain?
If it is the former then I will bow out now and agree to disagree because nothing is verifiable.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There may be rules, But who is enforcing the rules? It's not a rhetorical question. If there is no body willing/able to challenge an organization like CAS, then CAS does as it pleases. How much transparency is there in CAS? How often does CAS's activities get challenged? I'm reminded of the IOC. Subject to rules and yet rife with corruption.

You ask good questions but kill it by bringing in the IOC who have no relevance here.

It isn't who oversees CAS, its what oversees CAS.
Quite simply, CAS is a legal system so it is subject to the laws of Switzerland and international laws.

A CAS decison can be appealed through either Swiss law or EU laws depending on the legal argument.
As an example - there is a case that I am trying to read about that may have some relevance to AC, (Meca-Medina, Majcen) that was fought all the way through the European Courts of Justice - they lost their case case against CAS because they apply the relevant laws.

My understanding is Contador gets one, UCI AND WADA gets one and then CAS selects the third. We know the UCI and WADA are operating with completely different doping agendas. How is the three-person panel fair when WADA is constrained by the UCI's managed-doping agenda?

My point being, we would all like to trust CAS, but the way the process is set up favors dopers. I'm not going full 9-11 conspiracy either. While my knowledge of CAS is limited, it is obvious the UCI want this case to end with a negative and WADA has to deal with that agenda during the hearing. Maybe it is analogous to a three-legged race where the partner wants someone else to win?

The UCI will have little relevance here - and there is simply no comparison between UCI and CAS. None.

 

[roundabout]

That spike has nothing to doe with your statistic (in particular). The fact that Contador has high values is indeed rare. But what would you expect from one of the best cyclists out there? That he's average? It's like screwing Einstein over his abnormally high IQ. You're not as good because you're normal, but because you're not. More important is that for him the values are normal, which we don't know, but can only assume until proven otherwise. As of today he never exceeded any limits, not even with the hemoglobin 'spike' in may (which leeked and therefore seems to be a rare lead, but not significant enough, and definitely not downplaying his 'normal' - but indeed for Average Joe very exceptional - values)...

Ah so the spike has nothing to do with "my" statistic and Contador has blood values that are normal for him but rare for the human kind, is that correct?

Problem is that it seems that a defense expert for Contador couldn't explain the elevated reticulocyte count which I would presume based on the available information occurred at least once.

Of course one has to take into account that Paul Scott seemingly was less familiar with Contador's physiology than the likes of you so there might have been something that he missed and the blood values were indeed "normal"...

 

[Nilsson]

Not being smart here - but are you suggesting that you "heard" from people these different stories? Or are they in the public domain?
If it is the former then I will bow out now and agree to disagree because nothing is verifiable.

Correct. I fully understand you can't work with that info. Maybe something has been made public. For instance the negative advice at Vacansoleil. That was Douwe de Boer (how ironic, in comparison to Contador

I found something in this Dutch newspaper, google translated...

expert Douwe de Boer gives a negative opinion on Luijkx Ricco. He shares it even in the highest of three risk categories, after examining his blood profile.

 

[Nilsson]

Ah so the spike has nothing to do with "my" statistic and Contador has blood values that are normal for him but rare for the human kind, is that correct?

Problem is that it seems that a defense expert for Contador couldn't explain the elevated reticulocyte count which I would presume based on the available information occurred at least once.

Of course one has to take into account that Paul Scott seemingly was less familiar with Contador's physiology than the likes of you so there might have been something that he missed and the blood values were indeed "normal"...

I'm sorry if I look like a smartass to you. However, the elevated reticulocytes are new for me. Do you have more information on this subject?

Earlier on I even asked about this kind of information, because I think it's far more valuable. An elevated reticulocyte count could be very interesting sign of Epo(-like) use or extraction of blood...

 

[Merckx index]

another interesting caveat is that ashenden is a strong advocate of wider limits for haematocrit than the current 50%. iow, he advocates 52-53% - just where contador is alleged naturally.[/ QUOTE]

Studies done prior to the institution of the rule in the late 90s found that 2-3% of athletes in different sports have apparently natural HTs over 50%. That would suggest that maybe half a dozen riders in a GT, e.g., would be over 50%. The data also suggested that a limit of 52% would be exceeded only very rarely. (But a study of weightlifters found that 25% of them exceeded 50%, obviously not naturally. These guys take EPO?)

The level was set at 50% originally because of safety concerns, and presumably also to reduce the amount of HT increase a rider could get away with. But the passport has provided a better way of limiting HT increases, and the fact that natural HTs over 50% exist suggests that doping to these levels is, by itself, probably quite safe. So I can see how there would be reasonable arguments for raising the HT. In fact, you could use these data to argue that any fixed % rule is unneccesary. The main advantage of retaining it is that it’s cheap and easy to perform, so even if it rarely catches or even targets a potential doper, it’s probably cost effective.

http://sportsci.org/news/news9703/AISblood.html

 

[DirtyWorks]

You ask good questions but kill it by bringing in the IOC who have no relevance here.

It isn't who oversees CAS, its what oversees CAS.
Quite simply, CAS is a legal system so it is subject to the laws of Switzerland and international laws.

What legal system is perfectly protected from influence?

I brought the IOC up as an analogue. For people that tune in every four years, the IOC is probably a fine thing, as CAS may be. Look a little closer at the IOC and the problems are apparent. It doesn't mean CAS is as corrupt as the IOC. It's more like don't just assume CAS works perfectly.

Maybe I'm wrong. It should be safe to examine the CAS system to get some insight one way or another.

The UCI will have little relevance here - and there is simply no comparison between UCI and CAS. None.

Maybe another way to say it is it would be better if Contador AND the UCI chose someone, WADA chose someone, and CAS appoints a lead. It would better reflect reality. Heaven forbid the UCI lose the message they are discouraging doping though.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But the passport has provided a better way of limiting HT increases, and the fact that natural HTs over 50% exist suggests that doping to these levels is, by itself, probably quite safe. So I can see how there would be reasonable arguments for raising the HT. In fact, you could use these data to argue that any fixed % rule is unneccesary. The main advantage of retaining it is that it’s cheap and easy to perform, so even if it rarely catches or even targets a potential doper, it’s probably cost effective.

I bolded the part that justifies looking the other way when it comes to doping at the IOC and UCI. It also summarizes the bio-passport program into little more than a codpiece.

I cannot challenge the depth of your knowledge when it comes to the science. But, it should be obvious to you that the reality of being permissive around doping will not turn out well. (ex. Ricco) I think you and others already know that though.

 

[python]

we have only few days left (hopefully ) before the verdict on contador is announced...

still, ever since wada leaked the news about ashenden being blocked by cas from giving a testimony, i was, quite frankly, not just perplexed but uneasy with the fact.

the alleged legal reasoning - lack of probative value - is simple enough for a lawyer like publicus (no disrespect at all, mate ). but i am not one. to an observer like myself, or imo ANY critically-inclined or inquisitive scientist, ‘low probative value’ means little w/o some substantive evidence or at least a quick reflection.

to satisfy the curiosity within the modest time limit imposed on me by other duties, i attempted to fill the gap . i made inquiries to colleagues and medical pals, checked some research, made few assumptions and came to a tentative conclusion...

If the AP-reported incident was true, the cas panel in my opinion was not unreasonable, though personally i’d give ashenden the floor anyway, when they considered wada-proposed theory as too speculative.


if there will be sufficient interest, i’ll invest some time in putting my thoughts in writing and perhaps even open a separate thread. i don't see a reason to bother otherwise given the polarized nature of the majority of opinions.

 

[LaFlorecita]

If the AP-reported incident was true, the cas panel in my opinion was not unreasonable, though personally i’d give ashenden the floor anyway, when they considered wada-proposed theory as too speculative.


if there will be sufficient interest, i’ll invest some time in putting my thoughts in writing and perhaps even open a separate thread. i don't see a reason to bother otherwise given the polarized nature of the majority of opinions.

I'm interested...

 

[Porphyry]

Also interested, thank you python.