Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[python]

(called the burden of going forward--just rolls off the tongue ).

....but if WADA/UCI fails to meet its burden of going forward, then Contador walks if he meets his burden of proof.

publicus, whilst i understand and appreciate your comparison to a criminal case (btw, you comment was exactly what i was seeking - a constructive feedback)the wada code explicitly points to a terms like shifting the burden of proof from an athlete to an anti-doping organization in certain cases.

isn't wada proposing a 2-step transfusion theory - the step they don't have to do if contador failed to meet his burden - isn't it the de facto evidence that the burden has shifted b/c contador met his burden in the eys of the arbs ?

again, the wada theory simply should not be required.

@polish
we all have been trying to guess those very questions.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

my post clearly invited comments.what you did was misinterpreted simple well known things without showing why. when someone does that, without backing their position, the word is confusion. just like you showed several times in this thread, and even admitting that. if you perceive this as berating you, need to look inside.

I only need to look at what you have called me - "clueless" or "have no clue" at least 4 times.
That I have "failed" or "little understanding" at least 5 times, or my favorite that I am "a multiple failure case incarnated"...

so far you failed to show me incorrect whereas i and others showed how many times you've been wrong - examples are above for all to see.

I have seen that you write lots of words - but quality content is lacking.

You have not once linked to a CAS or even WADA case.

i already addressed once your attempts to get personal and misinterpret my contributions. nothing good will come out of it.

perhaps you're a little worried i decided to expose your confusion. hang on.

what you quoted is irrelevant to the point i was making - about shifting burden of proof - if required.

At any time you want to teach me something, please go right ahead.
I am not the one claiming a big picture view, who rather than defends any view with facts, engages in personal and irrelevant berating of people.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think python means that once Contador shows there's >50% chance his theory is true, WADA has to show that's not the case to have him sanctioned. So the burden of proof shifts from AC to WADA.

Pretty worrying, as well, is that you're not sure what sex AC is.

And as Publicus and the CAS documents I quoted this is not the case.

The Gasquet case quoted earlier is a good example - in short, there was agreement on all sides (ITF etc) that he had not used or abused cocaine as he had provided a hair sample that showed the approximate timeline and that the traces were too small for a habitual user.

Furthermore - through another hair sample, they were able to establish that the lady he kissed was a habitual user (contradicting her claims).
As it was accepted he had not used cocaine the kiss defense was accepted.

As I understand it, CAS is not sitting as an appellate court in the traditional sense.

I believe it was yourself who pointed out that these cases are held "de novo" - which is correct - so the case is heard in its entirety again but only subject to the particular allegation.

 

[python]

I only need to look at what you have called me - "clueless" or "have no clue" at least 4 times.
That I have "failed" or "little understanding" at least 5 times, or my favorite that I am "a multiple failure case incarnated"...

every single time was deserved and you even admitted it....but only when i pushed you into the hole you dug for yourself. no need to repeat examples are right there...clueless things like attributing contador police roles etc

I have seen that you write lots of words - but quality content is lacking.

i already told you, i'm happy for others to take my content to test. you...at this point you're just a disappointing, hurt, exposed poser. little value imo.

You have not once linked to a CAS or even WADA case.

i linked it many times when it mattered in the course of constructive exchange with others. with you ? i have learned from the experience of YOU bashing others, it's only warranted when you make sense. so far i have no seen it.

At any time you want to teach me something, please go right ahead.

this whole thread in the last few pages was about lecturing you. i did not even have to play a role. seeing how you jump on people and lecture them on irrelevant minutia, it was very revealing how nielsen and others rectified your confusion about the basics of anti-doping litigation like your cluelessness about the balance of probabilities meaning 51%.

you are an internet poser.

but, pleas, add content and comment on publicus, then we'll have a productive conversation.

And as Publicus and the CAS documents I quoted this is not the case.

you are misrepresenting what public wrote and misinterpreting the applicability of the gasquet case to the key point i made about the shifting burden of proof. if a poster disagrees with you, you need not obfuscate to score points.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

every single time was deserved and you even admitted it....but only when i pushed you into the whole you dug for yourself. no need to repeat examples are right there...clueless things like attributing contador police roles etc

That you attempt to suggest I "admitted it" shows your obvious intention to deflect.

I admitted that I made a poor choice of words, (IIRC EU regulations) which was not material to the discussion. You ignore that I was happy to correct it - and now attempt that it justifies your ad-hominens.

You have lost all objectivity.

i already told you, i'm happy for others to take my content to test. you...at this point you're just a disappointing, hurt, exposed poser. little value imo.

As this highlights - your content is mainly ad-hominens.

i linked it many times when it mattered in the course of constructive exchange with others. with you ? i have learned from the experience of YOU bashing others, it's only warranted when you make sense. so far i have no seen it.

Please show one post on this thread where you have linked to either a CAS or WADA decision.
It should take you less time then coming up with some excuse not to.

this whole thread in the last few pages was about lecturing you. i did not even have to play a role. seeing how you jump on people and lecture them on irrelevant minutia, it was very revealing how nielsen and others rectified your confusion about the basics of anti-doping litigation like your cluelessness about the balance of probabilities meaning 51%.

you are an internet poser.

but, pleas, add content and comment on publicus, then we'll have a productive conversation.

Amazingly, I get on (in an internet sense) and respect the contributions of Nilsson, MI, Publicus and many others here who i have engaged with on this thread even if we may not share the same view.

You on the other hand have attempted to ridicule myself, Mercx Index amongst others.

 

[python]

That you attempt to suggest I "admitted it" shows your obvious intention to deflect.

no it shows your mistakes that you were FORCED to admit after protracted deflections. everyone on this forum knows how you go after so many good posters.

I admitted that I made a poor choice of words, (IIRC EU regulations) which was not material to the discussion. You ignore that I was happy to correct it - and now attempt that it justifies your ad-hominens.

more deflection. in addition to admitting misrepresenting contador's defence
functions, you admitted to not reading a simple post (incidentally after trying to shift responsibility to me and finally admitting your mistake). you wasted pages and pages of your usual stubborn attempts to win internets. yes when you failed you had to admit. poser.

As this highlights - your content is mainly ad-hominens.

whining is not content. you have another option.

You on the other hand have attempted to ridicule myself,

you are the last to whine about ridiculing others.there are too many ggod posters you've bashed. you got what you seeked - an internet argument. but with me bs wont fly.

 

[Publicus]

publicus, whilst i understand and appreciate your comparison to a criminal case (btw, you comment was exactly what i was seeking - a constructive feedback)the wada code explicitly points to a terms like shifting the burden of proof from an athlete to an anti-doping organization in certain cases.

isn't wada proposing a 2-step transfusion theory - the step they don't have to do if contador failed to meet his burden - isn't it the de facto evidence that the burden has shifted b/c contador met his burden in the eys of the arbs ?

again, the wada theory simply should not be required.

@polish
we all have been trying to guess those very questions.

I used a criminal case because it would be easier to understand. It applies in a civil context as well. I don't think anything I've stated is at odds with the WADA code. If WADA meets its burden of going forward, then the athlete, in this case AC, would need to present additional evidence to meet the burden of proof--again, that obligation is and remains his alone. I think WADA has opted to use shifting the burden of proof language because, as I alluded to in my post somewhat glibly, the burden of going forward isn't something non-lawyers are familiar with--the concept of burden shifting, however, is fairly clear.

And I agree with you. WADA introduced the DEHP and the rather specific theory of the case in an attempt to meet its burden of going forward--demonstrate that the evidence AC presented did not satisfy his burden of proof.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.....

you are misrepresenting what public wrote and misinterpreting the applicability of the gasquet case to the key point i made about the shifting burden of proof. if a poster disagrees with you, you need not obfuscate to score points.

Well here is your opportunity to redeem yourself.
No need to put in ad-hominens - lets assume I am indeed stupid, clueless without any understanding, that I read what Publicus and the Gasquet piece showed and thought "Gasquet, is that not in the engine of a car?".

Can you show - using the Gasquet case since you suggest it covers the "key point" - exactly where (page no., & paragraph, - as myself and other do) this shifting burden of proof is that would address this earlier piece, that you agreed with.

I think python means that once Contador shows there's >50% chance his theory is true, WADA has to show that's not the case to have him sanctioned. So the burden of proof shifts from AC to WADA.

 

[python]

I used a criminal case because it would be easier to understand. It applies in a civil context as well. I don't think anything I've stated is at odds with the WADA code.

i understood that point of yours even earlier

If WADA meets its burden of going forward, then the athlete, in this case AC, would need to present additional evidence to meet the burden of proof--again, that obligation is and remains his alone

. again, no issues with understanding you here. the question i asked was very specific to the case. i did not imply that the athlete, contador, is absolved of his burden, obviously he's in the background whilst wada is solving it's burden. i only asked if the wada introducing a transfusion theory is a de facto shifting of the burden responsibility to to them ?

consideI think WADA has opted to use shifting the burden of proof language because, as I alluded to in my post somewhat glibly, the burden of going forward isn't something non-lawyers are familiar with--the concept of burden shifting, however, is fairly clear.

understood !

And I agree with you. WADA introduced the DEHP and the rather specific theory of the case in an attempt to meet its burden of going forward--demonstrate that the evidence AC presented did not satisfy his burden of proof.

did not or it did ? i don't understand the usage of 'not'. is it a typo ?

 

[Publicus]

i understood that point of yours even earlier . again, no issues with understanding you here. the question i asked was very specific to the case. i did not imply that the athlete, contador, is absolved of his burden, obviously he's in the background whilst wada is solving it's burden. i only asked if the wada introducing a transfusion theory is a de facto shifting of the burden responsibility to to them ? understood !
did not or it did ? i don't understand the usage of 'not'. is it a typo ?

Actually not a typo. WADA introduced that theory to demonstrate that AC had not met his burden of proof (that a transfusion could be the cause of the clen appearing in his system).

I was going to type out a rather long response about how this burden shifting would work in real life, but it boils down to this: the CAS panel, at no point, declares that AC has met his burden and then turns to WADA and tells them the burden is on them. Recall that WADA submitted filings to CAS attempting to refute AC's original RFEC submission. AC and his team then submitted an additional response. I believe there was an additional response from WADA. But in any event, I presume at the 3-4 day hearing, AC presented his case and witnesses, which WADA cross examined, and then rested his case. WADA subsequently presented its case. This is where they attempted to have Asheden act as a witness to introduce their 2-step theory, which was obviously in response to something that was in AC's case.

No where in that back and forth, does CAS make a ruling as to whether AC has met his burden or that WADA has failed to meet its burden. That won't be decided until they've weighed the evidence presented in the case (deliberated) and made a determination that AC met his burden notwithstanding the evidence put forth by WADA.

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[Merckx index]

isn't wada proposing a 2-step transfusion theory - the step they don't have to do if contador failed to meet his burden - isn't it the de facto evidence that the burden has shifted b/c contador met his burden in the eys of the arbs ?

again, the wada theory simply should not be required.

As often happens in this forum, I think a lot of the disagreement boils down to semantics. Regardless of whether the word “shift” is incorporated into the rules, it’s obvious that a shifting process has occurred during the case, when first one side, then the other, has had the ball thrown into it’s court (as Gasquet would say). De facto shifting, if you like.

What I find interesting, and a little disturbing, is that, as Python notes, Bert was considered to have met his initial burden. Why, indeed, is a transfusion theory required? Given the negative test immediately preceding the positive, everyone has to accept that Bert did not take CB knowingly and intentionally in anything remotely approaching an effective dose during the Tour. So he certainly has a right to ask WADA to propose some other way CB got into his system. But given how remote the possibility of contamination is, and given that Bert has provided no evidence that indicates that this very remote possibility would not apply to him, why should WADA have to prove anything more than transfusion is possible? To most people, even including scientists speaking precisely, one in a million is not possible. So anything possible trumps it.

Everyone will agree that transfusion, including the two step version, is possible in the physical sense—means exist for withdrawing blood, separating cells from plasma, storing the components in a way that accounts for DEHP in one and CB in the other, and re-infusing at a later time. It’s also possible in the practical sense, in that the various steps could actually be accomplished by a rider at various times before and during the season without necessarily failing a test or being caught in the act. There can be arguments about how probable this is, including how likely it is Bert would actually transfuse, how likely he would use the techniques required to account for the appearance of two different substances at different times in his system, and how likely it is his blood manipulations would not be detected. But does anyone seriously equate these probabilities with the one in a million chance of contaminated meat?

The fact that the case has come to this—let alone if Bert walks—shows very clearly that a lot of people, probably including the arbs in this case, do not believe the CB statistics. No one can possibly claim that the transfusion theory, two steps or not, has a probability of occurring of no better than around one in a million. If you are really sceptical, maybe one in a hundred, but nothing remotely approaching one in a million.

So when this case is finally settled, particularly if Bert walks, I hope someone intimately involved in it will explain how they came to believe that the CB statistics are not reliable. There is some other factor, not explicitly acknowledged, that leads people to conclude that the possibility of contaminated meat is many orders of magnitude greater than the stats indicate. Maybe they believe there is a lot of corruption in the system, that a lot of meat, particularly imported meat, dodges the controls. Maybe they believe the region where Bert's meat came from is a local hotspot with a history of cheating that was missed by the testers. Or maybe they just don't believe the testing system is reliable at all. I really hope, though very much doubt, that the arbs confront this issue head on, and provide some sort of estimate of how likely contamination is, and why.

 

[python]

Actually not a typo. WADA introduced that theory to demonstrate that AC had not met his burden of proof (that a transfusion could be the cause of the clen appearing in his system).

I was going to type out a rather long response about how this burden shifting would work in real life, but it boils down to this: the CAS panel, at no point, declares that AC has met his burden and then turns to WADA and tells them the burden is on them. Recall that WADA submitted filings to CAS attempting to refute AC's original RFEC submission. AC and his team then submitted an additional response. I believe there was an additional response from WADA. But in any event, I presume at the 3-4 day hearing, AC presented his case and witnesses, which WADA cross examined, and then rested his case. WADA subsequently presented its case. This is where they attempted to have Asheden act as a witness to introduce their 2-step theory, which was obviously in response to something that was in AC's case.

No where in that back and forth, does CAS make a ruling as to whether AC has met his burden or that WADA has failed to meet its burden. That won't be decided until they've weighed the evidence presented in the case (deliberated) and made a determination that AC met his burden notwithstanding the evidence put forth by WADA.

Hopefully that makes sense.

it does clarify few things...

to your comments before the bolded text...yeah, reading many cas rulings i figured it's not a 'you're right, now it's you prove him wrong' process. just like you said. but in the minds of the individual arbs, and in the minds of the opposing parties, it's very much the game of assigning merits to the proposed (and heard) arguments and constantly evaluating 'have i met my burden', 'have they met their burden' etc.

to the bolded...that was i believe where wada introduced the plasticizer and the blood passport evidence in support of the transfusion theory. imo, contador's team responce was what was leaked by the ap article - 'not possible b/c problems with dehp appearance/ not appearance in separate samples etc. of course, this was flushed out in written submittals as well before the hearing.

the bottom line appears to me is that there are 2 concurrent cases going on, two competing scenarios of the clenbuterol origin in the sample.

still, the burden of proof on contador is the balance of probabilities as to the contamination theory. he never is absolved of the responsibility. then, there's the wada scenario...is it correct to assume that wada's burden of proof is greater than contador's as i have understood it - the comfortable satisfaction of the arbs ?

 

[Publicus]

it does clarify few things...

to your comments before the bolded text...yeah, reading many cas rulings i figured it's not a 'you're right, now it's you prove him wrong' process. just like you said. but in the minds of the individual arbs, and in the minds of the opposing parties, it's very much the game of assigning merits to the proposed (and heard) arguments and constantly evaluating 'have i met my burden', 'have they met their burden' etc.

to the bolded...that was i believe where wada introduced the plasticizer and the blood passport evidence in support of the transfusion theory. imo, contador's team responce was what was leaked by the ap article - 'not possible b/c problems with dehp appearance/ not appearance in separate samples etc. of course, this was flushed out in written submittals as well before the hearing.

the bottom line appears to me is that there are 2 concurrent cases going on, two competing scenarios of the clenbuterol origin in the sample.

still, the burden of proof on contador is the balance of probabilities as to the contamination theory. he never is absolved of the responsibility. then, there's the wada scenario...is it correct to assume that wada's burden of proof is greater than contador's as i have understood it - the comfortable satisfaction of the arbs ?

I wouldn't think that was the case at all. WADA only has to poke sufficient holes in AC's case such that he can't meet his burden. That being said, I may be one of the few people here that think's AC's decision not to have a hair follicle test was a smart decision. Seems to me that WADA is in the rather diffficult position of pointing to his bio-passport to establish that a transfusion occurred on one or more days. Given that WADA/UCI have successfully prosecuted 1 or 2 riders using the passport alone (at least I seem to recall that they had, if I'm incorrect all of what follows is irrelevant), I suspect if AC's bio-passport had the relevant markers demonstrating a transfusion they would have proceed without the DEHP--since the test wasn't validated. That's why I think Ashden's testimony was irrelevant--it was all speculation unsupported by any evidence (i.e., he wasn't pointing to markers in AC's bio-passport that supported his contention). So in that regard, I think it makes WADA's job harder than some seem to contemplate. All of that is predicated on my rather rudimentary understanding of the bio-passport and my belief that WADA had successfully prosecuted (for lack of a better word) 1 or 2 riders for doping solely on their bio-passport alone. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong--I can handle it).

 

[ChrisE]

This whole thing is stupid, nearly as stupid as all of this bickering. From statistics AC cannot establish the likelihood the meat was contaminated. He doesn't have the meat, doesn't have a hair sample. The fact that WADA has to even try to refute this BS is assinine. Back and forth. Whatever.

 

[doolols]

This whole thing is stupid, nearly as stupid as all of this bickering. From statistics AC cannot establish the likelihood the meat was contaminated. He doesn't have the meat, doesn't have a hair sample. The fact that WADA has to even try to refute this BS is assinine. Back and forth. Whatever.

I know we sometimes disagree, but on this we are of one mind. I know, I know, the rules state, etc etc.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I wouldn't think that was the case at all. WADA only has to poke sufficient holes in AC's case such that he can't meet his burden.

Thats pretty much how I view it to.

Which is why Ashendens testimony (WADAs theory) was not required.
Obviously Ashenden cannot "prove" a transfusion - he can only suggest it as a possibility, which WADA could demonstrate through cross examination of ACs expert Scott.

That being said, I may be one of the few people here that think's AC's decision not to have a hair follicle test was a smart decision. Seems to me that WADA is in the rather diffficult position of pointing to his bio-passport to establish that a transfusion occurred on one or more days. Given that WADA/UCI have successfully prosecuted 1 or 2 riders using the passport alone (at least I seem to recall that they had, if I'm incorrect all of what follows is irrelevant), I suspect if AC's bio-passport had the relevant markers demonstrating a transfusion they would have proceed without the DEHP--since the test wasn't validated. That's why I think Ashden's testimony was irrelevant--it was all speculation unsupported by any evidence (i.e., he wasn't pointing to markers in AC's bio-passport that supported his contention). So in that regard, I think it makes WADA's job harder than some seem to contemplate. All of that is predicated on my rather rudimentary understanding of the bio-passport and my belief that WADA had successfully prosecuted (for lack of a better word) 1 or 2 riders for doping solely on their bio-passport alone. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong--I can handle it).

Not only has there been successful prosecutions of riders by the Bio Passport, CAS have upheld that decision (Pellozotti).

One point you made earlier - only small, but it may explain the legal procedure, is that according to media reports Contadors team successfully got Ashenden excluded as a witness, but said he was allowed to cross-examine ACs expert. This could suggest that first order of business is to agree on the witness list and what evidence or information can or cannot be introduced.

 

[ChrisE]

I know we sometimes disagree, but on this we are of one mind. I know, I know, the rules state, etc etc.

Sometimes disagree? I don't ever recall discussing anything with you, but that is cool.

You see, this is why I think the fix is in. The fact that this has taken so long and has been delayed and drawn out for something so simple, and there are rumblings in the background of threshold is telling IMO. No, I don't care to dig into the legal proceedings and technicalities python and doc are arguing about, and splitting hairs over. I don't care to even go there because it is irrelevant IMO.

I am very skeptical of all things without full transparency and checks/balances, if possible. The CAS is not that.

Ask yourself...who would benefit if AC is found guilty? By benefit I mean financially, which is the drive of all things unethical. Andy Schleck? Menchov? LOL. First of all they are dopers as well so that is a zero sum game, with the sport taking a hit. The only person that would benefit is the guy way down on GC that may be clean, or the person that doesn't ride because he chooses not to dope.

That is it. Financially, there is absolutely zero incentive for AC to be found guilty, and alot of incentive for him to walk. This is not technical but instead intuitive, so I am sure it has no place in this thread. But, sometimes things aint as they should be, and the truth is in the face. I may be wrong, and I will admit it if I am, but I doubt it.

 

[python]

As often happens in this forum, I think a lot of the disagreement boils down to semantics. Regardless of whether the word “shift” is incorporated into the rules, it’s obvious that a shifting process has occurred during the case, when first one side, then the other, has had the ball thrown into it’s court (as Gasquet would say). De facto shifting, if you like.

What I find interesting, and a little disturbing, is that, as Python notes, Bert was considered to have met his initial burden. Why, indeed, is a transfusion theory required? Given the negative test immediately preceding the positive, everyone has to accept that Bert did not take CB knowingly and intentionally in anything remotely approaching an effective dose during the Tour. So he certainly has a right to ask WADA to propose some other way CB got into his system. But given how remote the possibility of contamination is, and given that Bert has provided no evidence that indicates that this very remote possibility would not apply to him, why should WADA have to prove anything more than transfusion is possible? To most people, even including scientists speaking precisely, one in a million is not possible. So anything possible trumps it.

Everyone will agree that transfusion, including the two step version, is possible in the physical sense—means exist for withdrawing blood, separating cells from plasma, storing the components in a way that accounts for DEHP in one and CB in the other, and re-infusing at a later time. It’s also possible in the practical sense, in that the various steps could actually be accomplished by a rider at various times before and during the season without necessarily failing a test or being caught in the act. There can be arguments about how probable this is, including how likely it is Bert would actually transfuse, how likely he would use the techniques required to account for the appearance of two different substances at different times in his system, and how likely it is his blood manipulations would not be detected. But does anyone seriously equate these probabilities with the one in a million chance of contaminated meat?

The fact that the case has come to this—let alone if Bert walks—shows very clearly that a lot of people, probably including the arbs in this case, do not believe the CB statistics. No one can possibly claim that the transfusion theory, two steps or not, has a probability of occurring of no better than around one in a million. If you are really sceptical, maybe one in a hundred, but nothing remotely approaching one in a million.

So when this case is finally settled, particularly if Bert walks, I hope someone intimately involved in it will explain how they came to believe that the CB statistics are not reliable. There is some other factor, not explicitly acknowledged, that leads people to conclude that the possibility of contaminated meat is many orders of magnitude greater than the stats indicate. Maybe they believe there is a lot of corruption in the system, that a lot of meat, particularly imported meat, dodges the controls. Maybe they believe the region where Bert's meat came from is a local hotspot with a history of cheating that was missed by the testers. Or maybe they just don't believe the testing system is reliable at all. I really hope, though very much doubt, that the arbs confront this issue head on, and provide some sort of estimate of how likely contamination is, and why.

i saw your post after my response/question to publicus.

anyways, i think publicus addressed what seems a shared concern (shifting of responsibility to wada) as the normal course of an appeal process. iow, since it was wada (forget the useless uci) who appealed the rfec decision, they had to introduced new theory (and the new evidence supporting it) as opposed to having been forced into the introduction by bert meeting his burden. that might very well be true, but as you said, if cas considered clen incidence evidence convincing (the opposite of rfec's conclusion) the blood theory would not have been even needed.

a lot of the other questions you ask are pertinent..hopefully we'll see them answered by the public ruling.

 

[Publicus]

Thats pretty much how I view it to.

Which is why Ashendens testimony (WADAs theory) was not required.
Obviously Ashenden cannot "prove" a transfusion - he can only suggest it as a possibility, which WADA could demonstrate through cross examination of ACs expert Scott.




Not only has there been successful prosecutions of riders by the Bio Passport, CAS have upheld that decision (Pellozotti).

One point you made earlier - only small, but it may explain the legal procedure, is that according to media reports Contadors team successfully got Ashenden excluded as a witness, but said he was allowed to cross-examine ACs expert. This could suggest that first order of business is to agree on the witness list and what evidence or information can or cannot be introduced.

Did they say Ashenden cross examined, or that WADA's lawyers were allowed to cross examine AC's expert? I would assume the latter. The former would be unheard of....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Did they say Ashenden cross examined, or that WADA's lawyers were allowed to cross examine AC's expert? I would assume the latter. The former would be unheard of....

Apologies - good catch, you're correct.

The CAS arbitrators ordered the chamber emptied while they deliberated and then called the parties back.

The chairman, Efraim Barak, announced that WADA lawyers were not allowed to question Ashenden about these transfusion issues but could cross-examine an anti-doping consultant for Contador's side, Paul Scott.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sometimes disagree? I don't ever recall discussing anything with you, but that is cool.

You see, this is why I think the fix is in. The fact that this has taken so long and has been delayed and drawn out for something so simple, and there are rumblings in the background of threshold is telling IMO. No, I don't care to dig into the legal proceedings and technicalities python and doc are arguing about, and splitting hairs over. I don't care to even go there because it is irrelevant IMO.

I am very skeptical of all things without full transparency and checks/balances, if possible. The CAS is not that.

Ask yourself...who would benefit if AC is found guilty? By benefit I mean financially, which is the drive of all things unethical. Andy Schleck? Menchov? LOL. First of all they are dopers as well so that is a zero sum game, with the sport taking a hit. The only person that would benefit is the guy way down on GC that may be clean, or the person that doesn't ride because he chooses not to dope.

That is it. Financially, there is absolutely zero incentive for AC to be found guilty, and alot of incentive for him to walk. This is not technical but instead intuitive, so I am sure it has no place in this thread. But, sometimes things aint as they should be, and the truth is in the face. I may be wrong, and I will admit it if I am, but I doubt it.

Well you should look at the arguments presented - both Python & I are in agreement about the objectivity and ability of CAS to offer an impartial verdict.
For the very reason of the laws that are argued about here.

Guess what - you can be sure that legal interpretations were argued with just as much vigor as it has here.

 

[Merckx index]

I wouldn't think that was the case at all. WADA only has to poke sufficient holes in AC's case such that he can't meet his burden. That being said, I may be one of the few people here that think's AC's decision not to have a hair follicle test was a smart decision. Seems to me that WADA is in the rather diffficult position of pointing to his bio-passport to establish that a transfusion occurred on one or more days. Given that WADA/UCI have successfully prosecuted 1 or 2 riders using the passport alone (at least I seem to recall that they had, if I'm incorrect all of what follows is irrelevant), I suspect if AC's bio-passport had the relevant markers demonstrating a transfusion they would have proceed without the DEHP--since the test wasn't validated. That's why I think Ashden's testimony was irrelevant--it was all speculation unsupported by any evidence (i.e., he wasn't pointing to markers in AC's bio-passport that supported his contention). So in that regard, I think it makes WADA's job harder than some seem to contemplate. All of that is predicated on my rather rudimentary understanding of the bio-passport and my belief that WADA had successfully prosecuted (for lack of a better word) 1 or 2 riders for doping solely on their bio-passport alone. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong--I can handle it).

You’re right about the passport, and you may be right that this is one reason why Ashenden was not allowed to testify. But here’s another: Ashenden’s own published work shows that most blood doping cases are not detected by the passport (as presently constituted—he suggests a somewhat more effective set of measurements). That would make him persona non grata by everyone, wouldn’t it? Bert’s team wouldn’t want him mentioning that, because it makes the point that any passport tests Bert may have passed don’t mean much. But UCI and WADA don’t want that emphasized either, because it suggests the passport isn’t very effective.

Now maybe WADA protested exclusion of his testimony, but if they did so, it must have been with mixed feelings. Maybe they instructed him not to discuss his own research, but if that was the case, what was he supposed to discuss? GJB, among others here, has been prominent arguing that UCI/WADA have their hands tied on this issue, that arguing away negative passport data would be to shoot themselves in the foot. But as far as I can see, that is precisely Ashenden's expertise that is relevant to this case.

Conspiracy theorists special: WADA proposed that Ashenden testify, knowing Bert's side would object to his demolishing the notion that negative passport data mean much. But since they also didn't want everyone to see the Emperor has no clothes, they were happy to go along with the CAS decision. Rather than shoot themselves in the foot, they just protested the decision, thus planting the idea of some unfairness without actually having to absorb the negative publicity about the passport.

 

[BYOP88]

Not much longer left......hopefully!

 

[ChrisE]

Well you should look at the arguments presented - both Python & I are in agreement about the objectivity and ability of CAS to offer an impartial verdict.
For the very reason of the laws that are argued about here.

Guess what - you can be sure that legal interpretations were argued with just as much vigor as it has here.

I would be more inclined to believe that if there were more than 3 judges.

 

[Nilsson]

As often happens in this forum, I think a lot of the disagreement boils down to semantics. Regardless of whether the word “shift” is incorporated into the rules, it’s obvious that a shifting process has occurred during the case, when first one side, then the other, has had the ball thrown into it’s court (as Gasquet would say). De facto shifting, if you
like.

Absolutely, MI.

About the shifting: I guess you could also see it in the earlier delays (the first, questioned by Contador's camp, granted by all; the second, questioned by WADA, granted by all - and probably had a lot to do with arguments going back and forth).

What I find interesting, and a little disturbing, is that, as Python notes, Bert was considered to have met his initial burden. Why, indeed, is a transfusion theory required? Given the negative test immediately preceding the positive, everyone has to accept that Bert did not take CB knowingly and intentionally in anything remotely approaching an effective dose during the Tour. So he certainly has a right to ask WADA to propose some other way CB got into his system.

The emboldened quote is very important. Since WADA was an appellant, and it already turned out a contamination case, WADA had to put something on the table (transfusion in first, and secondly, inevitably, 'strict liability')

But given how remote the possibility of contamination is, and given that Bert has provided no evidence that indicates that this very remote possibility would not apply to him, why should WADA have to prove anything more than transfusion is possible? To most people, even including scientists speaking precisely, one in a million is not possible. So anything possible trumps it.

How remote is remote? There is a lot of confusion about the statistics and there are different numbers (and probably circumstances, like the arrests in Castilla Y Leon in february 2011, problematic registration with the supplier and a clenbuterol offence by his brother) out there...

The data that, probably, has been used:

Based on a scientific study, the WADA argues the possibility of a cow in Castilla y León being fattened with clenbuterol is 0.0065 percent. Although the steak was bought in Irún, in the Basque Country, the AMA report refers to Castilla y León because its investigations establish the cow was reared in Pedraza de Alba (Salamanca) and slaughtered in Fuentesaúco (Zamora). The WADA also stated that 143 cases of illegal fattening with clenbuterol were detected from 1999 to 2002, and just four from 2003 to 2009.

When 900 out of 1.000.000 are tested, at random in Europe, numbers are at least volatile (not even considering that some regions are likely to be more problematic than others - also in terms of 'making mistakes' to keep meat under the threshold, in beneath everything presumably is 'okay' (from a authority/public health perspective)...

Everyone will agree that transfusion, including the two step version, is possible in the physical sense—means exist for withdrawing blood, separating cells from plasma, storing the components in a way that accounts for DEHP in one and CB in the other, and re-infusing at a later time.

Absolutely, a transfusion is perfectly possible. CB as well (although it's an extra variable, and not coming alone)

It’s also possible in the practical sense, in that the various steps could actually be accomplished by a rider at various times before and during the season without necessarily failing a test or being caught in the act. There can be arguments about how probable this is, including how likely it is Bert would actually transfuse, how likely he would use the techniques required to account for the appearance of two different substances at different times in his system, and how likely it is his blood manipulations would not be detected. But does anyone seriously equate these probabilities with the one in a million chance of contaminated meat?

Extraordinary difficult to say. Firstly, the chance of contaminated meat is probably a bit bigger (at least one on 15 485). Secondly, there are less variables (contaminated meat is a conclusive theory for the clen positive; transfusion as such is not, because it implies earlier use of clenbuterol or using otherwise clen contaminated plasma) and thirdly there are precedents with the meat story (although not in Europe, of course, which is but could also not be relevant, legally) where transfusion has none...

The fact that the case has come to this—let alone if Bert walks—shows very clearly that a lot of people, probably including the arbs in this case, do not believe the CB statistics. No one can possibly claim that the transfusion theory, two steps or not, has a probability of occurring of no better than around one in a million. If you are really sceptical, maybe one in a hundred, but nothing remotely approaching one in a million.

I understand the gut feeling, but where are the facts, numbers, chances? It's almost impossible to put an objective number on it. In general the chance that someone eats contaminated meat is far greater than use clenbuterol and a (contaminated) transfusion.

But Contador? He's a cyclist, need to say more? He's a TDF-winner... That will do it?

Probably not, how more (though subjectively) likely it even seems to be. The will always be a sufficient lead needed to back-up such a premise. If there isn't (because there isn't or because he played it smart) it would not be correct to ban him on such theory and should let him go. I would advise WADA to open a proper transfusion case against Contador (if possible) or (if they believe in their theory, but he played the game just between the lines) go re-test some of his old urine-samples...