Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Dr. Maserati]

so, to further develop my earlier deduction in this post that the delay was likely a procedural interruption caused by cas' review of barring ashenden’s testimony…how likely was it to influence the outcome ?

It can be looked at from on a number of different angles each of which may or may not apply…

Evidentiary angle.
since the hearing ended and assuming ashenden was indeed excluded, there shouldn’t have been anything new (in terms of admissible evidence) added to the ‘pile’ for the 3 arbiters to base their decision on between the end of november and yesterday. as i speculated earlier, if the result of wada complaint was allowing wada to submit additional written arguments, the nature of the supplemented arguments may only be an expansion on those ashen den was denied in the first place. that is - wada may have received an opportunity to boost the likelihood of a 2-step transfusion theory. Frankly, I can’t see anything of sort… like the additional tests (they can’t be turned around in 2 weeks) or some new technical interpretations (they would require the other side be given the right to respond) and would take longer that 2 weeks. having in mind this type of considerations, i lean to the opinion there was NO new evidence added as a result of the latest delay. it was all likely about legal procedural motions and responses. you want odds dr mass ? let’s put it at 60/40. so this round favours bert

Psychological angle.
Not being an expert in the field, I can’t give it a due review. But if I was a member of the panel - much less it’s chairman - I’d very much be paying attention to the complaint. I would look thrice and weigh each of my past and future decisions. Can it result in altering some previous interpretations (before the complaint) ? I think so. Particularly now, when the arbiters have to commit their verbal consultations to writing and thus enter legal history. which leads me to the last angle…

Legal significance of a precedent.
again not being an expert, i can only use my knowledge and experience gained from similar cases. there is one big legal issues on the table - strict liability. clen threshold was mentioned earlier too, and the panel’s verdict may indeed affect it’s regulation down the road, but its significance imo isn’t comparable to contador’s verdict impact on strict liability. where will this chip fall ? hard to say but it’s clear that the panelists well realise they will create a significant legal precedent if they completely exonerate contador.

i’m going to take a risk here and say something i haven’t said before - if the panel rejected wada theory of a blood transfusion - which increasingly looks like they did - contador’s case (in terms of legal logic) becomes equivalent to rfec's hearing or the german ponger’s case. we all remember that was another precedent (1st full clen exoneration) except in that case the evidence of contamination was almost obvious and much stronger than in bert’s case. still wada refused to budge and dragged that poor german into cas to only yield in the last minute. (I described those circumstances in other threads).

such is the strength of wada commitment to the principle of strict liability ! cas knows it and cares about it but if contador’s exonerated it may force wada into reshaping the principle - as wada should.

You start off asking what the delay was, a fair question.
But then bring up some "procedural interruption" - and finish off by churning out the same talking points that have been argued already and are irrelevant.

The delay was stated by WADA:

However, the CAS has requested the parties to clarify whether, at this stage, any of them wanted to challenge the composition of the arbitral panel. As all answers were negative, the Panel will now be able to resume its mission. Unfortunately, this regrettable incident has slightly delayed the work of the Panel and the publication of the final decision should now take place during the week of 31 January 2012.

 

[python]

You start off asking what the delay was, a fair question.
But then bring up some "procedural interruption" - and finish off by churning out the same talking points that have been argued already and are irrelevant.
[/URL]:

you are free to stop considering what i consider relevant.

 

[GJB123]

Indeed.



We shouldn't even be talking about "how". The rules state that evidence of the substance is against the rules. Therefore he's guilty.

You're right. However, the only other explanation (which AC is using) is the consumption of contaminated meat, but the probability of that is so tiny to be insignificant. The case should hinge on whether AC can prove that contamination was the reason. He can't. He's guilty.

You keep harping on about that. Do you think it becomes more true if you repeat it often enough?

AC doesn't have to prove anything to avoid punishment. He has to establish no significant fault or negligence (lower punishment) or altenatively establish no fault or negligence (no punishment). He could do that by proving the actual meat he ate was contaminated or he can do that by establishing that other explanations are less likely than contamination (basically what the German ponger did, who also didn't have the a pice of the meat to meet your standards of proof). ow you may not like that, but those are the rules by which this particular (legal) game is played.

So give it a rest please as it has been discussed to death on this forum and contributions like yours are becoming a bit tiresome and besides don't add any value to an otherwise very interesting discussion.

Regards
GJ

 

[Benotti69]

Detection isn't evidence of doping. It's evidence that a certain substance is found.

If it was all that simple we wouldn't have had all the discussions over here, and the Contador case would already have been concluded a long time ago...

We don't know anything for sure, we can only think we do (because we have our thoughts and arguments, or gut feeling)...

The case should've never happened if his federation gave him 2 year ban according to the rules.

To remind you, there is no thresh hold for Clenbuterol. So if Clenbuterol is detected it is a straight 2 year ban, but the Spanish did not ban him.

It is typical of pro cycling not to shoot the golden goose when they find that its eggs are produced using banned substances so here we are in a mess that led us to CAS and the ongoing saga.

Contador had Clen in his system, 2 year ban if he cannot prove how it go there. A eaten steak is not proof in the real world, but i say it again UCI pro cycling is another planet.

 

[doolols]

So give it a rest please as it has been discussed to death on this forum and contributions like yours are becoming a bit tiresome and besides don't add any value to an otherwise very interesting discussion.

I am distraught that you think posts like mine are becoming tiresome. I won't be able to sleep tonight. Still, at least it's given you an opportunity to try to slap my wrists. So it had some value, at least

 

[GJB123]

To believe that this case wouldn't have gone to CAS with a 2 year ban by the Spanish federation is utter folly.

 

[The Plediadian]

How does it serve the sport of cycling when individuals such as Contador are protected? Why do the foxes(RFEC&CAS) protect the henhouse(UCI&PROCYCLING).

 

[lean mean &green]

How does it serve the sport of cycling when individuals such as Contador are protected? Why do the foxes(RFEC&CAS) protect the henhouse(UCI&PROCYCLING).

national federations like the RFEC have plenty of incentive to sweep PED use under the rug but i still consider the CAS to be mostly impartial. at the very least, much more impartial than nat feds.

 

[The Plediadian]

national federations like the RFEC have plenty of incentive to sweep PED use under the rug but i still consider the CAS to be mostly impartial. at the very least, much more impartial than nat feds.

I am sure that you are correct. IOC and RFEC, as well as national sporting bodies have been proven to be corrupt.
There have been a number of sacrificial lambs, and positives which have been ignored.
However in the particular case of Contador and Clen discovery in a doping sample, it seems like it would have been in the best interest of sport,(and the sport of cycling,) to make a bold statement and a clear decision as far as Contadors' ban.
For some reason the CAS is stalling. My guess is there is no pay off however it seems that the arbitrators are mulling over how the decision will fair in the public eye.
A strange way indeed, to run a judging body.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you are free to stop considering what i consider relevant.

I am - indeed, I am also free to keep pointing it out and showing you why it is irrelevant.

Detection isn't evidence of doping. It's evidence that a certain substance is found.

If it was all that simple we wouldn't have had all the discussions over here, and the Contador case would already have been concluded a long time ago...

We don't know anything for sure, we can only think we do (because we have our thoughts and arguments, or gut feeling)...

......you are forgetting the applicable law.

The Strict Liability argument is a red herring - if it was strict, then yes, this issue would have been dealt with ages ago and Contador would be in the middle of his ban.

Even Contadors lawyer Andy Ramosacknowledged this last year:

"One of the misinterpretations that we've often seen is that athletes are operating within a strict liability system, under which if anything is found in an athlete's system they have to be sanctioned. But that is simply not true as articles 296 and 297 of the UCI code stipulate."

 

[LaFlorecita]

The case should've never happened if his federation gave him 2 year ban according to the rules.

To remind you, there is no thresh hold for Clenbuterol. So if Clenbuterol is detected it is a straight 2 year ban, but the Spanish did not ban him.

It is typical of pro cycling not to shoot the golden goose when they find that its eggs are produced using banned substances so here we are in a mess that led us to CAS and the ongoing saga.

Contador had Clen in his system, 2 year ban if he cannot prove how it go there. A eaten steak is not proof in the real world, but i say it again UCI pro cycling is another planet.

He - and this has been stated again and over again on this forum- doesn't have to PROVE how it got in his system. Using several precedents, it comes down to the fact he only has to show his theory is more likely than WADA's transfusion theory.

 

[Benotti69]

He - and this has been stated again and over again on this forum- doesn't have to PROVE how it got in his system. Using several precedents, it comes down to the fact he only has to show his theory is more likely than WADA's transfusion theory.

Clen in your system is a 2 year ban, remember no threshold. RFEC couldn't ban their golden boy of cycling. When this happened it gets messy. Now it is with the lawyers and proving an eaten steak over transfusion is dependent on how good your lawyer is and WADA's experts.

In my book he always doped and still dopes. My 'proof', he rode for Sainz, rode for Bruyneel and now rides for self confessed TdF winning doper Riis.

Get over it he is a doper, a cheat and a fraud.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He - and this has been stated again and over again on this forum- doesn't have to PROVE how it got in his system. Using several precedents, it comes down to the fact he only has to show his theory is more likely than WADA's transfusion theory.

Not quite - he must establish how the clenbuterol was in his system.
AC says it was a steak - that is merely a theory, and one that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Here is the relevant UCI rule:

296. 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.

 

[Nilsson]

I am - indeed, I am also free to keep pointing it out and showing you why it is irrelevant.


......you are forgetting the applicable law.

The Strict Liability argument is a red herring - if it was strict, then yes, this issue would have been dealt with ages ago and Contador would be in the middle of his ban.

Even Contadors lawyer Andy Ramosacknowledged this last year:

I agree...

 

[python]

I am - indeed, I am also free to keep pointing it out and showing you why it is irrelevant.

just as i am free to point out that your concern is irrelevant. the whole comment you made was red herring b/c it had nothing to with my post you quoted. iow, you misread, either intentionally or not, and proceeded to have a conversation with yourself.

 

[Nilsson]

Not quite - he must establish how the clenbuterol was in his system.
AC says it was a steak - that is merely a theory, and one that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Here is the relevant UCI rule:

He indeed has to establish how the clenbuterol came into his system, but according to the WADA Rules and jurisprudence like the Gasquet case he demonstrates that on a balance of probabilities.

And furthermore Art. 3.1 of the WADA Code, which provides that:
“Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person
alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability…”

5.9. In view of these provisions, it is the Panel’s understanding that, in case it is offered several alternative explanations for the ingestion of the prohibited substance, but it is satisfied that one of them is more likely than not to have occurred, the Player has met the required standard of proof regarding the means of ingestion of the prohibited substance. In that case, it remains irrelevant that there may also be other possibilities of ingestion, as long as they are considered by the Panel to be less likely to have occurred. In other words, for the Panel to be satisfied that a means of ingestion is demonstrated on a balance of probability simply means, in percentage terms, that it is satisfied that there is a 51% chance of it having occurred. The Player thus only needs to show that one specific way of ingestion is marginally more likely than not to have occurred.

 

[LaFlorecita]

In my book he always doped and still dopes. My 'proof', he rode for Sainz, rode for Bruyneel and now rides for self confessed TdF winning doper Riis.

Get over it he is a doper, a cheat and a fraud.

Funny how you state that as a fact, while you do acknowledge you don't have actual proof for it.

 

[LaFlorecita]

He indeed has to establish how the clenbuterol came into his system, but according to the WADA Rules and jurisprudence like the Gasquet case he demonstrates that on a balance of probabilities.

I just wanted to post something similar.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

just as i am free to point out that your concern is irrelevant. the whole comment you made was red herring b/c it had nothing to with my post you quoted. iow, you misread, either intentionally or not, and proceeded to have a conversation with yourself.

You are certainly free to point out whatever you like - but that you continually ignore the laws which will ultimately decide this case to further some one step, 2 step, 17 transfusion theory which was ruled irrelevant.

It is AC who has to establish how the clenbuterol got in his system, not WADA.

He indeed has to establish how the clenbuterol came into his system, but according to the WADA Rules and jurisprudence like the Gasquet case he demonstrates that on a balance of probabilities.

So far Contador has merely established that someone bought a nice juicy Spanish steak.

How can one judge that a steak bought in the EU, in a country with no clenbuterol positives, with its own testing system and tracking system, satisfy that the steak bought had in the "balance of probabilities" been treated with clenbuterol?

 

[LaFlorecita]

So far Contador has merely established that someone bought a nice juicy Spanish steak.

How can one judge that a steak bought in the EU, in a country with no clenbuterol positives, with its own testing system and tracking system, satisfy that the steak bought had in the "balance of probabilities" been treated with clenbuterol?

If I were you I'd let the judges decide on that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If I were you I'd let the judges decide on that.

I'll take that under advisement, since you were happy to post your support 2 posts back for something that offered Contador hope.

I am more than happy for the judges to decide on this case using the current laws. If Contador is able to establish that the steak was indeed the source of his contamination I will accept that - however there has been nothing to suggest he has done that.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

It is AC who has to establish how the clenbuterol got in his system, not WADA.

So far Contador has merely established that someone bought a nice juicy Spanish steak.

How can one judge that a steak bought in the EU, in a country with no clenbuterol positives, with its own testing system and tracking system, satisfy that the steak bought had in the "balance of probabilities" been treated with clenbuterol?

First, let's say you tested positive for Clenbuterol in the exact same fashion as Contador. How would you go about showing that the clenbuterol in your system came from elsewhere? What resources would you use?

As far as the other tests, were any of those tests as sensitive as the one to which Contador was subjected? The possibility exists that, had the tests detected such trace amounts, more positives would have resulted.

 

[Benotti69]

Funny how you state that as a fact, while you do acknowledge you don't have actual proof for it.

Funny how i prefaced that with "in my book" .

I would love to live in lala land where Bertie says no to all these doping DS's.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

First, let's say you tested positive for Clenbuterol in the exact same fashion as Contador. How would you go about showing that the clenbuterol in your system came from elsewhere? What resources would you use?

One big point here.
What is "exact same fashion"? Are you assuming the steak story is true? That AC could not have doped?

If AC did get contaminated by a steak than it can (and has) be traced, and all the relevant details regarding testing and the probability of it being contaminated can be established- there is nothing to suggest that his steak had clenbuterol.

As far as the other tests, were any of those tests as sensitive as the one to which Contador was subjected? The possibility exists that, had the tests detected such trace amounts, more positives would have resulted.

One of Contadors tests was for as little as 7pg/ml - and that Cologne lab alone did over 13,000 tests last year.
While obviously all are not for Clen - any chance that a trace level exists would have been apparent.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Funny how i prefaced that with "in my book" .

I would love to live in lala land where Bertie says no to all these doping DS's.

So, why do you tell me to "get over it, he's a doper, a cheat and a fraud." That seems like stating the facts to me.

As to the DS's, what would you do if you're offered a place on the team of the best DS in the world (JB)? And he didn't say yes to Saiz in the first place, he chose to join Saiz' youth squad himself. And with that, how should he have known Saiz was such a fraud, while he was just 19 years old. I think anyone would've said yes immediately whenever they're asked if they want to join a pro team.