Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[LaFlorecita]

When did valverde beat contador?

Dauphiné, I suppose.

 

[LaFlorecita]

"Valverde doped or not" ????

The fact that Valverde was caught doping has nothing to do with his friendship with Contador you mean.

I mean that it doesn't matter that Valverde doped, Alberto can still like him just as much as he would've done if he hadn't.

 

[The Hitch]

When my buddy breaks into my house and takes my tv I will still like him as a person.

Dopers deny clean riders glory and income. It is not natural to be friends with somebody that does this to you.

Since this concept is being lost on the AC apologists, it does no use for me to continue explaining this simple concept. Take care.

Lol bail when you are losing.
if you watched cycling or read the responces you would realise that your analogy is totaly wrong. its not what if your friend stole your tv. its what if they stole somebody elses. valverdr is no threat to contador. its like complaining that ac doesnt cry about ale jet doping

 

[ChrisE]

Why? So he should suddenly start acting all anti-doping? He has never done so, it would only look like an attempt to influence the authorities. Alberto has been stated saying he doesn't want to judge anyone testing positive, and that he'll never accuse someone of doping because he simply can't see whether one does or not. For example, when asked about Ricco, he said he hadn't seen anything suspicious about his performances at all.

So basically, he doesn't want to be "anti-doping", because he simply doesn't want to accuse someone falsly and judge people, even though they might be dopers, he just can't see it.

All I gotta say is "wow". Sorry, I will need to process all of this so I can reply in a manner that doesn't get me banned.

 

[LaFlorecita]

When my buddy breaks into my house and takes my tv I will still like him as a person.

That comparison is stupid, and you know it. Breaking into one's house is by no means the same as unfairly standing in the way of one of more than 70 wins.

Dopers deny clean riders glory and income. It is not natural to be friends with somebody that does this to you.

Yeah, I'm sure Alberto misses that glory..

Since this concept is being lost on the AC apologists, it does no use for me to continue explaining this simple concept. Take care.

Whatever you want. See ya!

 

[LaFlorecita]

All I gotta say is "wow". Sorry, I will need to process all of this so I can reply in a manner that doesn't get me banned.

I'd love to know what you wanted to say.

 

[ChrisE]

Lol bail when you are losing.
if you watched cycling or read the responces you would realise that your analogy is totaly wrong. its not what if your friend stole your tv. its what if they stole somebody elses. valverdr is no threat to contador. its like complaining that ac doesnt cry about ale jet doping

So, if your the clean guy on the top of the mountain you don't care if others are cheating to beat you? Valverde is a GC rider.

OK, AC should not care about other riders doping because it doesn't effect him. Riiiight. Glad we got this all cleared up.

I guess it's called relative moralism, or something like that? You are the guy with the smart guy in the avatar so maybe you can explain what the term is for this. Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

All I gotta say is "wow". Sorry, I will need to process all of this so I can reply in a manner that doesn't get me banned.

There's a lot of that going around today. I have said thins in my head today that would have gotten me banned on forms on which I have never posted.

Something in the water?

Anyway, Contador and Valvpiti played the exact same legal game. Valv lost, but two peas on a pod otherwise.

 

[Publicus]

If you were clean, and your friend doped to beat you, how would you act?

Yes, of course I would be spinning it because of AC's history. You really can't play chicken/egg on this subject with AC.

In general, just to clear up any confusion, the lack of outrage by others when people are caught doping is the clearest indication of what is going on.

Come to think of it, the fact that AC said this while still awaiting this BS farce of a verdict kinda looks like he is trolling the authorities. He knows he will get off.

again, if it is my friend I don't twist the knife in public. Nothing to be gained except ending your friendship.

 

[Nilsson]

Wrt CB stats, I just don’t see what else there is to go on. They might be misleading, but we can only conjecture that. Some point out all these raids and other evidence of cheating, but unless their effects can be quantitated, even as a rough guess, I don’t see how they can contribute to a final decision. If they do, then I think CAS will have to say something like, “Despite the evidence from testing that there is virtually zero possibility of eating contaminated meat in Spain, we don’t actually believe that. We believe the testing system provides a very distorted view of the safety of eating Spanish meat.” If Bert is let off, I think that would be the honest thing to say. I don’t see how anyone could find him innocent and at the same time not express those sentiments. Indeed, as you know, Bert has provoked the ire of some meat industry organizations for his suggestion that the stats are misleading. I hope if he gets off, CAS will confront this issue head-on (as Mexico did), and not try to pretend there is no problem here.

I'm afraid It's not this simple. Not from a legal poit of view, but neither from a scientific point of view. You (and even I) can maybe think the transfusion scenario is more likely, but how hard must the data to confirm that theory be?

Is it fair to assume a transfusion if you can't 'proof' a transfusion. How probable should you be able to make it? The general posibility isn't enough, certainly not when there is not a single precedent and there are too much variables and assumptions to conclude the theory (compared to the meat theory, where there have been precedents, and in fact the only - though big, but sustainable? - problem is Europe).

Is it fair to just assume a clenbuterol tainted transfusion? Can we just presume earlier use of clenbuterol and Contador making big mistakes with his (high tech) doping program? Like we agreed on already: a lot will probably depend on his testing schedule.

Contador being a cyclist (even being a TDF-winner) isn't enough. Connecting the dots and create a plausible story isn't either. We don't know every detail, bad enough, but it's definitely going to take some more than that...

It's a very tough decision for the panel to make, because if one thing in this case is certain, it's that (accept for the clen positive) almost nothing is...

 

[The Hitch]

I guess it's called relative moralism, or something like that? You are the guy with the smart guy in the avatar so maybe you can explain what the term is for this. Thanks.

im not defending contador, just putting you dowb a bit as you are acting as if you just discovered america because you found that key piece of evidence that proves contador doped. not the failed test or investigation ot the scientific evaluations or the beating of convicted dopers. no, rather a comment he made aboug his friend congratulating him for the win

Also because you keep repeating something yoh made up, that contador has lost something to a doped valverde.

btw valverdes case was from 06 so saying that one hopes hes clean now isnt entirely right since in theory he was clean for 4 years befote his suspension

 

[ChrisE]

im not defending contador, just putting you dowb a bit as you are acting as if you just discovered america because you found that key piece of evidence that proves contador doped. not the failed test or investigation ot the scientific evaluations or the beating of convicted dopers. no, rather a comment he made aboug his friend congratulating him for the win

Wrong.

I am pointing out the actions of obvious dopers, even if they aren't under investigation like AC. I wrote the same thing about AS inre to AC, and have really slammed Menchov in the past about Heras, but maybe not on this forum. Just another piece of "evidence', in addition to the stuff you listed.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm afraid It's not this simple. Not from a legal poit of view, but neither from a scientific point of view. You (and even I) can maybe think the transfusion scenario is more likely, but how hard must the data to confirm that theory be?

Is it fair to assume a transfusion if you can't 'proof' a transfusion. How probable should you be able to make it? The general posibility isn't enough, certainly not when there is not a single precedent and there are too much variables and assumptions to conclude the theory (compared to the meat theory, where there have been precedents, and in fact the only - though big, but sustainable? - problem is Europe).

Is it fair to just assume a clenbuterol tainted transfusion? Can we just presume earlier use of clenbuterol and Contador making big mistakes with his (high tech) doping program? Like we agreed on already: a lot will probably depend on his testing schedule.

Contador being a cyclist (even being a TDF-winner) isn't enough. Connecting the dots and create a plausible story isn't either. We don't know every detail, bad enough, but it's definitely going to take some more than that...

It's a very tough decision for the panel to make, because if one thing in this case is certain, it's that (accept for the clen positive) almost nothing is...

I agree with you. I just hope that the panel considers the plasticizer evidence in the mix.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think a lot of bickering can be defused if we understand that there are different interests among the posters. Python’s main interest is what will CAS actually decide? From this point of view, he is correct that all that matters is that Lausanne was negative and WADA accepted it. The fact that Bert might actually have tested positive for CB on that day with a more sensitive test is completely irrelevant to the outcome of this case. This is consistent with his generally hard-nosed approach: let’s forget all the what-if speculation, and focus on reality, what outcomes are actually possible.

<snipped for brevity>

to be perfectly clear and leaving the bickering part aside, your appraisal of my main angle in assessing ALL information related to the contador case was spot-on (i admit, i had to look up ’hard-nosed’) that said, i’m firmly in favour of all sorts of ‘what ifs’ - there simply can not be a healthy nor productive scientific discussion without a thorough threshing out of different possibilities, however speculative.
<snipped for brevity>…

I enjoy both your arguments on the science and while happily admitting I do not understand it all, it shows that there is a lot to be debated and discussed.

This is the exact difficulty with this case - there is no obvious and compelling argument on either side to suggest where the clenbuterol came from.
That is why I have gone and read up on CAS cases, what have CAS decided on in other cases when there is argument about how an AAF happened. This is ultimately what the panel will have to apply in coming to their decision.

 

[Merckx index]

Maybe I misunderstand, but I still think it's not accurate. Not in this specific case, not with only one lab in Europe able to pick out the 'meat-positives'. How many Spanish (or other Southern-European, and I assume much more likely to be 'problematic') samples are tested in Cologne, from Spanish athletes? I think almost none.

It's not a coincidence that in Europe, before Contador, only athletes living or competing in Northern Europe (and eating meat in China/Mexico) have been tested positive. It applies to Ovtcharov, Van Hout, Nielsen, Weng (competing in Rotterdam), Fuyu Li (Dwars door Vlaanderen, Belgium)...

And what about statistics of athletes who 'properly' tested positive for clenbuterol? It's strange that there are almost none, with that many tests (sure as hell compared to meat) and more labs that should be able to find really high values. The highest values in recent years have been some of the Mexican football players, who (without questioning) were exonerated...

Do you understand that in this passage you are echoing the arguments for believing Bert doped that I and some others accept? Yes, my point was that few other riders have been tested for CB at Cologne, so Bert’s positive can’t be explained as the result of mass testing. I was simply pointing out that if mass testing hypothetically did occur, if enough riders were tested often enough at a sensitive level, then statistically the possibility of a positive becomes greater, possibly eventually large enough to be fairly likely.

This would be a sound argument for Bert’s statistical experts to use, and the fact that they haven’t trotted it out, at least to my knowledge (no mention of it in RFEC) reinforces the conclusion that such mass testing data don’t exist. That very few riders have been tested at a sensitive level. If they had been, these data would be highly relevant to this case. If they were all negative, Bert’s experts could argue that Bert’s positive was a result of this group effect—test enough individuals, and the odds are that one of them will be positive. OTOH, if there were any positives (in addition to Bert), they could argue that this is further evidence that the prevalence of CB contamination in Spanish or Euro meat is greater than believed. A no lose situation.

I'm afraid It's not this simple. Not from a legal point of view, but neither from a scientific point of view. You (and even I) can maybe think the transfusion scenario is more likely, but how hard must the data to confirm that theory be?

Yes, it really is that simple. The odds of transfusion are irrelevant here; if anything, the more unlikely transfusion is believed to be, the more compelling the conclusion of contamination. To repeat, my point is that if Bert gets off, it’s because CAS believes the meat was contaminated. To believe that means to disbelieve the published statistics of meat testing. You can’t run away from this conclusion, pretend that it isn’t the conclusion.

And you haven't! You yourself have basically made the same point. Your point in posting the story of the meat seizure was to argue that a lot of meat may evade testing controls. This is how the meat statistics could be flawed.

The general posibility isn't enough, certainly not when there is not a single precedent and there are too much variables and assumptions to conclude the theory

The only unusual assumptions are a) that he had a lot CB in his system when he withdrew blood; and b) he transfused twice at the Tour, once with cells and once with plasma. Both of these assumptions are plausible, and I bet there are riders who could, if placed under oath, testify that both kinds of practices have occurred. Given how widespread blood doping appears to be, it would be remarkable if no one ever withdrew blood contaminated with some PE substance. And given the urgent need to lower the HT following transfusion of cells, it would be remarkable if no one ever followed such a transfusion with another transfusion of fluid.

 

[Nilsson]

Do you understand that in this passage you are echoing the arguments for believing Bert doped that I and some others accept? Yes, my point was that few other riders have been tested for CB at Cologne, so Bert’s positive can’t be explained as the result of mass testing. I was simply pointing out that if mass testing hypothetically did occur, if enough riders were tested often enough at a sensitive level, then statistically the possibility of a positive becomes greater, possibly eventually large enough to be fairly likely.

Yes I understand, but it doesn't work one way it works both ways (like a lot of things in this case). The fact that only Northern European samples are tested in Cologne (plus some of the Tour, including Bert's, because, how ironically, there was an AFLD-UCI conflict in 2010) is a problem. It limits the chance that a European athlete tests positive to meat to almost zero, until 2010 when a certain rider ate meat (brought from Spain, apparently a more problematic region) and all factors did fall together..

This would be a sound argument for Bert’s statistical experts to use, and the fact that they haven’t trotted it out, at least to my knowledge (no mention of it in RFEC) reinforces the conclusion that such mass testing data don’t exist. That very few riders have been tested at a sensitive level. If they had been, these data would be highly relevant to this case. If they were all negative, Bert’s experts could argue that Bert’s positive was a result of this group effect—test enough individuals, and the odds are that one of them will be positive. OTOH, if there were any positives (in addition to Bert), they could argue that this is further evidence that the prevalence of CB contamination in Spanish or Euro meat is greater than believed. A no lose situation.

I understand, and I can agree with this. Although (when only Tour positives, especially when team mates) it could still work the other way around. Contador, also now, can have a story corresponding with statistics. Of course it would be easier for him if possible risks of eating meat in (southern) Europe were already exposed, but the fact that it hasn't doesn't make his story (statistically) less possible - not with almost strictly Northern European testing (athlets and events). I don't know if it has been taken into consideration, but if they did(n)t it would appear that: Southern European athletes don't eat meat and/or don't compete in Mexico or China; or Southern European sports events don't attract athletes from the latter...

Yes, it really is that simple. The odds of transfusion are irrelevant here; if anything, the more unlikely transfusion is believed to be, the more compelling the conclusion of contamination. To repeat, my point is that if Bert gets off, it’s because CAS believes the meat was contaminated. To believe that means to disbelieve the published statistics of meat testing. You can’t run away from this conclusion, pretend that it isn’t the conclusion.

Yes and no. It's (simple) as you say it now (and I already did earlier, as you stated as well) but not as you stated previously. Yes, when the transfusion is more likely, the meat contamination is less and vice versa. But what I pointed out is, what is needed to make the transfusion (or the contaminated meat) likely. That's what isn't simple, that's what has, more than anything, made this case.

And you haven't! You yourself have basically made the same point. Your point in posting the story of the meat seizure was to argue that a lot of meat may evade testing controls. This is how the meat statistics could be flawed.

Yes, but it doesn't make it simple, it's just a (possible) argument. Like All the arguments and all the possibilities: it makes a though case - because of the lack of certainty. I think we don't disagree (that much) on this, but it's mainly misinterpreting...

The only unusual assumptions are a) that he had a lot CB in his system when he withdrew blood; and b) he transfused twice at the Tour, once with cells and once with plasma. Both of these assumptions are plausible, and I bet there are riders who could, if placed under oath, testify that both kinds of practices have occurred. Given how widespread blood doping appears to be, it would be remarkable if no one ever withdrew blood contaminated with some PE substance. And given the urgent need to lower the HT following transfusion of cells, it would be remarkable if no one ever followed such a transfusion with another transfusion of fluid.

Yes, I agree. No doubt about it. But it seems CAS has no such facts to work with. Not that it otherwise wouldn't, but it all depends on how strong the leads in Bert's passport are, if any (written) explanations from Ashenden about/and the DEHP are taken in consideration (at all), how the and to what extend the polygraph test is allowed to play a role, etc.

How likely has something to be to flip the 'balance', or to meet some kind of 'burden' to (be able to) flip it? We can only wait for the CAS judgement to enlighten us...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...'I was simply pointing out that if mass testing hypothetically did occur, if enough riders were tested often enough at a sensitive level, then statistically the possibility of a positive becomes greater, possibly eventually large enough to be fairly likely. This would be a sound argument for Bert’s statistical experts to use, and the fact that they haven’t trotted it out, at least to my knowledge (no mention of it in RFEC) reinforces the conclusion that such mass testing data don’t exist. That very few riders have been tested at a sensitive level. If they had been, these data would be highly relevant to this case. If they were all negative, Bert’s experts could argue that Bert’s positive was a result of this group effect—test enough individuals, and the odds are that one of them will be positive.

The 'expected frequency' argument would be a very silly one for Bert's defense to present IMO. If large numbers of athletes tested negative for clen at that sensitivity, that absolutely demonstrates clen contamination occurs very infrequently. A false positive rate of 1 in 10,000 for instance, would mean any positive would meet the comfortable satisfaction standard of proof for an AAF. I agree that its unlikely those data are available though, or WADA would surely have raised them.

Yes, it really is that simple. The odds of transfusion are irrelevant here; if anything, the more unlikely transfusion is believed to be, the more compelling the conclusion of contamination. To repeat, my point is that if Bert gets off, it’s because CAS believes the meat was contaminated. To believe that means to disbelieve the published statistics of meat testing. You can’t run away from this conclusion, pretend that it isn’t the conclusion.

I don't agree with this. They can say that clen contamination in the European population is unknown but non zero. OTOH, while biopass and DEHP data suggest he was up to something, there is not one scrap of evidence supporting the assertion that he was using clen in the off season or did a plasma infusion on the 21st. So, based on admissible evidence, a clen contaminated plasma infusion on the 21st is entirely speculative and steak wins.

From the outside, it's pretty easy to say that the probability that a clean rider has an average hemoglobin concentration above 16, DEHP in his blood and clen in his wees is negligible. Just sanction him already. But that argument would probably not be acceptable in a legal context.

 

[python]

OTOH, while biopass and DEHP data suggest he was up to something, there is not one scrap of evidence supporting the assertion that he was using clen in the off season or did a plasma infusion on the 21st. So, based on admissible evidence, a clen contaminated plasma infusion on the 21st is entirely speculative and steak wins.

as we know the publicly available evidence, this statement is absolutely correct. aslo, the bolded part imo points to the only thing we may NOT have been let on and that could be wada's key remaining argument - additional and undisclosed tests.

the logic would go something like this...from the landis proceedings we know that an anti-doping authority, if it's reasonably sure in the results, can request and can not be denied additional testing on the remainder of the samples that were negative previously. it's a safe bet that some of those samples are still around. they can retest lausanne samples, both blood and urine, they may also retest some of the 70+ samples bert is alleged to have given in the previous 7 months.

it is reasonable to assume, that having advanced a 2 step transfusion theory, wada would be interested in catching either clen or abnormal dehp in one of those samples. whether they actually went ahead with the opportunity greatly depends on what's available from which dates. for example, i can't imagine wada would not contemplate a transfusion around the 1st rest day.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

as we know the publicly available evidence, this statement is absolutely correct. aslo, the bolded part imo points to the only thing we may NOT have been let on and that could be wada's key remaining argument - additional and undisclosed tests.

the logic would go something like this...from the landis proceedings we know that an anti-doping authority, if it's reasonably sure in the results, can request and can not be denied additional testing on the remainder of the samples that were negative previously. it's a safe bet that some of those samples are still around. they can retest lausanne samples, both blood and urine, they may also retest some of the 70+ samples bert is alleged to have given in the previous 7 months.

it is reasonable to assume, that having advanced a 2 step transfusion theory, wada would be interested in catching either clen or abnormal dehp in one of those samples. whether they actually went ahead with the opportunity greatly depends on what's available from which dates. for example, i can't imagine wada would not contemplate a transfusion around the 1st rest day.

WADA might have test data to support its case that haven't been leaked. My guess from the exclusion of Ashenden is that they don't, but that is really a pretty groundless opinion.

Pondering your suggestion of retested samples from the 20th, I was wondering how that would work. Once they open and test the A sample, don't they then automatically discard the rest of it? Doesn't that leave only the B sample to test elsewhere? Why is testing only the B sample acceptable or what am I missing?

 

[python]

WADA might have test data to support its case that haven't been leaked. My guess from the exclusion of Ashenden is that they don't, but that is really a pretty groundless opinion.

yes, the logic would suggest that either such test data was unavailable or counterproductive if indeed resorted to given what we know about ashenden. i just threw the possibility 'out there' as it never gets considered yet is a viable avenue...it may also explain the delays.

Pondering your suggestion of retested samples from the 20th, I was wondering how that would work. Once they open and test the A sample, don't they then automatically discard the rest of it?

if negative, the a-sample gets discarded normally. the the b-sample however stays for some time (iirc, up to 3 months). based on wada's rule ('whatever available means') that was tested for the first time during the landis proceedings and against his furious objections, yes, there's such option. you're correct it only can be applied to b samples. the legal reasoning is to obtain CORROBORATIVE evidence in support of some scenario.

as soon as an athlete tests positive, all his other samples (if available) become forensic evidence and the lab is supposed to keep them as long as the legal process lasts.

 

[Cimacoppi48]

The boy has gained 16 pounds since the Tour. He really needs the right preparation to get his lean body mass where it has to be for climbing. How w-i-l-l he do it?

 

[Benotti69]

The boy has gained 16 pounds since the Tour. He really needs the right preparation to get his lean body mass where it has to be for climbing. How w-i-l-l he do it?

In Argentina, i wonder what the ratio of Clen to Cow is :}

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In Argentina, i wonder what the ratio of Clen to Cow is :}

I have to admit I am disappointed in "the fix is in, Contador has bought the CAS Chairman" conspiracy theorists not noticing that Contador opens his season in Argentina.....

VeloNation notes that Barak does however have some connections to Spain. Born in Buenes Aires in Argentina and speaking fluent Spanish, his own LinkedIn profile states that in 1992 he became a member of the Rex Sport Associacion de Asesores del Deporte, a Spanish legal entity with a main branch in Barcelona.

Link to article.

 

[Benotti69]

I have to admit I am disappointed in "the fix is in, Contador has bought the CAS Chairman" conspiracy theorists not noticing that Contador opens his season in Argentina.....


Link to article.

no doubt he is buying clen ravaged meat and having it frozen and packed for July even as we speak...

 

[sniper]

I have to admit I am disappointed in "the fix is in, Contador has bought the CAS Chairman" conspiracy theorists not noticing that Contador opens his season in Argentina.....
[/URL]

I think the case was clear enough already without this additional piece of evidence