Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[greatking88]

I was just wondering if the UCI are going to use Contador's bio passport in their evidence why haven't they brought a case against him for bio passport abnormalities before this point?

I actually think Contador will get some sort of ban, not sure how long, maybe 1 year.

 

[sniper]

I see zero possibility that Contador walks from this without a sanction.

I sure hope you're right.
But then why did he lawyer up like that? I assume his pockets are deep, but I also assume somebody close to him convinced him he has chances to win the case.

 

[thehog]

I was just wondering if the UCI are going to use Contador's bio passport in their evidence why haven't they brought a case against him for bio passport abnormalities before this point?

I actually think Contador will get some sort of ban, not sure how long, maybe 1 year.

….with time served should be racing by April.

 

[Race Radio]

I sure hope you're right.
But then why did he lawyer up like that? I assume his pockets are deep, but I also assume somebody close to him convinced him he has chances to win the case.

He earned millions by delaying the sanction a year during the peak of his career. Do not forget he has been largely supported by the Spanish Fed and media so he likely not been exposed to excessive amounts of an alternative view.

For Contador to win he would have to produce a piece of the tainted steak, which is not going to happen. Given the inability to produce a tainted steak he would have to show that Clen is pervasive in the food supply, like it is in Mexico and China. He may be able to show there is an tiny chance of contamination but pervasive? No Way.

WADA on the other hand will lay out a clear and compelling case for contamination from a transfusion.

 

[GJB123]

He earned millions by delaying the sanction a year during the peak of his career. Do not forget he has been largely supported by the Spanish Fed and media so he likely not been exposed to excessive amounts of an alternative view.

For Contador to win he would have to produce a piece of the tainted steak, which is not going to happen. Given the inability to produce a tainted steak he would have to show that Clen is pervasive in the food supply, like it is in Mexico and China. He may be able to show there is an tiny chance of contamination but pervasive? No Way.

WADA on the other hand will lay out a clear and compelling case for contamination from a transfusion.

Here we have someone again with all the wisdom from having read all the briefs, I guess. Fact is you now little more than others here, so your posting is largely conjecture. No, Contador does NOT have to produce a tainted steak. This has been covered ad nauseam if you would have bothered to read it. He has to show that out of all the possible explanations (we have identified about 4) the contaminated meat is the most likely one. Hence WADA trying to show another possibility, transfusion, is more likely. Nor more, no less. That is what is at stake.

Regards
GJ

 

[Race Radio]

Here we have someone again with all the wisdom from having read all the briefs, I guess. Fact is you now little more than others here, so your posting is largely conjecture. No, Contador does NOT have to produce a tainted steak. This has been covered ad nauseam if you would have bothered to read it. He has to show that out of all the possible explanations (we have identified about 4) the contaminated meat is the most likely one. Hence WADA trying to show another possibility, transfusion, is more likely. Nor more, no less. That is what is at stake.

Regards
GJ

You are welcome to pretend this, but it is not the case. You, or anyone else, believing it will do nothing to help him escape sanction.

 

[GJB123]

You are welcome to pretend this, but it is not the case. You, or anyone else, believing it will do nothing to help him escape sanction.

Sure, yada, yada, yada. And naturally everyone questioning your faulty reasoning is hoping Contador escapes sanction. Right on, bro, but some here are just interested in the intricacies of the case. But hey don't let any of the real details get in the way!

Regards
GJ

 

[python]

I don't understand how the transfusion angle fits in.

Isn't it an appeal to overturn RFEC's verdict on the clenbuterol AAF? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they can't prove (on the balance of probabilities) a transfusion and use that to change the original verdict. The original verdict was that Contador's team had shown enough to convince RFEC that the clenbuterol AAF was not a result of intentional use of the substance, or that he was not negligent in it entering his system via contamination (or whatever the legal terms are).

you are correct, contador was charged only with clenbuterol aaf. none of the publicly available documents or any official statements said otherwise. whether contador transfused or not, it is apparent that he was not charged with the transfusion because there is no LEGAL BASIS (officially wada legal criteria for an aaf requires 95% confidence level).

though there’s no legal charge, the transfusion angle fits in as a corroborative evidence and only so far as entertaining the possible route of how clen got into contador’s body. in their documentation package sent to contador, the uci entertained 4 distinct possibilities/routes - (i) consuming contaminated supplement, (ii) micro dosing with clen, (iii) food contamination, (iv) blood transfusion.

given the known facts, and the results of contador’s testing - negative for clen a day before the positive - most observers agree that only the 2 last possibilities remain (transfusion or true contamination) and are realistic.

The original verdict was that Contador's team had shown enough to convince RFEC that the clenbuterol AAF was not a result of intentional use of the substance, or that he was not negligent in it entering his system via contamination (or whatever the legal terms are)

. contador’s defence was based on showing evidence that (on balance of probabilities) out of the 4 possibilities indexed by the uci, by using elimination method, only the food contamination was plausible. (same defence strategy as successfully used by the ponger ovcharov a bit earlier)

So shouldn't the basis of the appeal be either:

(a) Contador was liable for the clenbuterol contamination

(b) Contador knowingly used clenbuterol in a direct breach of the Code.

Evidence of a transfusion is not necessarily evidence of either (a) or (b). If the UCI wanted to pursue a case against Contador for a transfusion, or an irregular bio-passport, wouldn't that be a whole new proceeding, not something they can just attach to the clenbuterol case?

the wada/uci appeal refers to the (a) only. The (b) relates to legal arguments around the principle of strict liability as postulated by wada. that is, even if he did not know and did not knowingly used it, he’s still responsible. Wada is interested in defending this cornerstone principle with all it’s might. the no negligence or no significant negligence counts only so far as determining the length of the sanction.

 

[Race Radio]

Sure, yada, yada, yada. And naturally everyone questioning your faulty reasoning is hoping Contador escapes sanction. Right on, bro, but some here are just interested in the intricacies of the case. But hey don't let any of the real details get in the way!

Regards
GJ

I am fully aware of the intricacies of the case. Note that I wrote in detail that the WADA case would be transfusion based months ago. This was not a guess but was based on conversations with people involved with the case.

You are welcome to think that contaminated meat is the "most likely" explanation but I see zero possibility that CAS will agree with you. If you are really interested in the "Intricacies of the case" then perhaps you should discuss them instead of attacking other posters?

 

[Race Radio]

you are correct, contador was charged only with clenbuterol aaf. none of the publicly available documents or any official statements said otherwise. whether contador transfused or not, it is apparent that he was not charged with the transfusion because there is no LEGAL BASIS (officially wada legal criteria for an aaf requires 95% confidence level).

though there’s no legal charge, the transfusion angle fits in as a corroborative evidence and only so far as entertaining the possible route of how clen got into contador’s body. in their documentation package sent to contador, the uci entertained 4 distinct possibilities/routes - (i) consuming contaminated supplement, (ii) micro dosing with clen, (iii) food contamination, (iv) blood transfusion.

given the known facts, and the results of contador’s testing - negative for clen a day before the positive - most observers agree that only the 2 last possibilities remain (transfusion or true contamination) and are realistic.


. contador’s defence was based on showing evidence that (on balance of probabilities) out of the 4 possibilities indexed by the uci, by using elimination method, only the food contamination was plausible. (same defence strategy as successfully used by the ponger ovcharov a bit earlier)


the wada/uci appeal refers to the (a) only. The (b) relates to legal arguments around the principle of strict liability as postulated by wada. that is, even if he did not know and did not knowingly used it, he’s still responsible. Wada is interested in defending this cornerstone principle with all it’s might. the no negligence or no significant negligence counts only so far as determining the length of the sanction.

Exactly......

Ultimately WADA will show that a transfusion is the far more likely explanation and will have the strict liability to fall back on

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you are correct, contador was charged only with clenbuterol aaf. none of the publicly available documents or any official statements said otherwise. whether contador transfused or not, it is apparent that he was not charged with the transfusion because there is no LEGAL BASIS (officially wada legal criteria for an aaf requires 95% confidence level).

though there’s no legal charge, the transfusion angle fits in as a corroborative evidence and only so far as entertaining the possible route of how clen got into contador’s body. in their documentation package sent to contador, the uci entertained 4 distinct possibilities/routes - (i) consuming contaminated supplement, (ii) micro dosing with clen, (iii) food contamination, (iv) blood transfusion.

given the known facts, and the results of contador’s testing - negative for clen a day before the positive - most observers agree that only the 2 last possibilities remain (transfusion or true contamination) and are realistic.


. contador’s defence was based on showing evidence that (on balance of probabilities) out of the 4 possibilities indexed by the uci, by using elimination method, only the food contamination was plausible. (same defence strategy as successfully used by the ponger ovcharov a bit earlier)


the wada/uci appeal refers to the (a) only. The (b) relates to legal arguments around the principle of strict liability as postulated by wada. that is, even if he did not know and did not knowingly used it, he’s still responsible. Wada is interested in defending this cornerstone principle with all it’s might. the no negligence or no significant negligence counts only so far as determining the length of the sanction.

The samples before his positive on 21 July were all done in the Lausanne laboratory, not Cologne who can detect much lower traces- so this does not limit it just to the 2 (contamination, transfusion) although it looks as though the transfusion is what WADA will argue.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Here we have someone again with all the wisdom from having read all the briefs, I guess. Fact is you now little more than others here, so your posting is largely conjecture. No, Contador does NOT have to produce a tainted steak. This has been covered ad nauseam if you would have bothered to read it. He has to show that out of all the possible explanations (we have identified about 4) the contaminated meat is the most likely one. Hence WADA trying to show another possibility, transfusion, is more likely. Nor more, no less. That is what is at stake.

Regards
GJ

Obviously AC does not have to literally bring a sample of tainted meat - but ACs difficulty is that in defending himself in public he has offered a lot of detail.

So far the facts that he has offered - meat purchased in Irun - actually mean that the theory of actual contamination can be tested against other likelihoods. As RR has suggested short of producing a chunk of meat he is unlikely to show that contamination is a real possibility.

 

[hrotha]

Exactly......

Ultimately WADA will show that a transfusion is the far more likely explanation and will have the strict liability to fall back on

If it was established that the clen got into his system in July due to a blood transfusion, could new proceedings be opened against him for what would essentially be a separate doping infraction?

 

[python]

The samples before his positive on 21 July were all done in the Lausanne laboratory,

i don't believe it's an established fact. in fact, there is indirect tentative evidence that his URINE sample on a day before the positive was also analysed by cologne.

 

[Polish]

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.

.

There are a few polls already out there on the topic
I like this one.....still open for voting btw:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12417
.
.
.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i don't believe it's an established fact. in fact, there is indirect tentative evidence that his URINE sample on a day before the positive was also analysed by cologne.

From the RFEC decision:

As set forth in these Proceedings, the cyclist underwent seven consecutive tests during the international event called "Tour de France 2010" according to the analysis performed at the "Institut fur Biochemie, Cologne" and the "Laboratory of Lausanne."
In the latter there was a negative finding in urine samples of 5, 12, 19, and 20 July 2010, and a positive finding for Clenbuterol, which led to the initiation of these Proceedings, in those of the days 21 July 2010 (50 pg / ml), 22 July 2010 (16pg/ml), 24 July 2010 (7pg/ml) and 25 July 2010 (17 pg / ml) in
samples analyzed in Cologne.

 

[Race Radio]

If it was established that the clen got into his system in July due to a blood transfusion, could new proceedings be opened against him for what would essentially be a separate doping infraction?

If they have a witness, perhaps.

 

[Benotti69]

Am i correct in remembering that Contador's claim that 2 brothers in the Basque were busted previously for Clen use in their cattle and this was the source of the steak?

Well the butcher's story seems to dismiss that the meat came from the Basque region!

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

i don't believe it's an established fact. in fact, there is indirect tentative evidence that his URINE sample on a day before the positive was also analysed by cologne.

Eh? Alberto's urine was in cologne? Or was cologne in his urine? This case is far too complicated. I'm sticking with the floating witch test.

 

[Siriuscat]

Personally, I hope he gets off so we see the global forums go into meltdown with everybody up in arms about it, it'll be a scream.

The reality is that I suspect he wont miss much if banned at all. I think theres too much about this case in doubt to be able to come to a safe descision therefore CAS will give him the benefit of the doubt. I still believe that the positive was in contradiction to the code ie no reports unless the level is over a certain amount and the fairnes of the testing process is questionable for me as well. If one set of tests is done at Cologne which has greater sensitivities than the other labs then EVERY test from the 2010 tour should have been done at Cologne.

As a fan, I hope he gets cleared, but if there is proof beyond all reasonable doubt then he should be banned, I still think there is enough doubt for him to be cleared.

 

[therealtimshady]

Cas never rule in the riders favour - I will bet £400,000 that he gets a 2 year ban

 

[Race Radio]

Cas never rule in the riders favour - I will bet £400,000 that he gets a 2 year ban

They ruled for Landaluze

 

[therealtimshady]

Really?? Thought he got banned i will look it up. Still going to bet that 400k though

 

[ferryman]

Cas never rule in the riders favour - I will bet £400,000 that he gets a 2 year ban

Don't be silly just put it on him to win TDF 2013/14/15

 

[therealtimshady]

The ban will last from July 2011 to July 2013 I would imagine