Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Dr. Maserati]

we've seen it before, we've also see your remarkable ability to surface almost 2 years old fluff no one except you would care about. thus go and do your home work. that you chose to ignore my assertion of you pretending to be on the same wavelength tells how little credibility you deserve.

I certainly never said I was on the same wavelength as you - I don't do smoke signals.

I am just wondering why you seem so sure in dismissing CAS case history so much?
But, I will admit, I did do some homework Not on you though, little point looking for something thats not there.

But I actually think you will find this "2 year old fluff" is indeed something you will care about because you wrote this recently:

this is where i see one of the biggest challenges for the cas panel - how to interpret a key issue, like what defines 'exceptional circumstances' for bert and whether he demonstrated them...

specifically, there are no precedents when wada (or another anti-doping organisation) appealed to cas a COMPLETE exoneration of an athlete charged with clenbuterol and the panel actually needing to sit down and delve into the details. at least i have not found any. ....

Let me introduce the case of Josephine Onyia - a Spanish hurdler she was positive for methylhexaneamine in Lausanne on a sample from 2nd September 2008, then on the 13th September her sample tested positive for clenbuterol in Stuttgart, that sample was tested in Cologne.

She was heard in Spain by the RFEA who completely exonerated her - but it got appealed to CAS.
Part of her strategy was to suggest that the clen contamination came from food, and as she was traveling so much it could have been anywhere. Also she had many tests during that time and this test suggested it was indeed food contamination.

Part 87 of the CAS verdict is interesting:

The mere assertion that the low concentration of clenbuterol found could potentially have been caused by the ingestion of contaminated meat is inadequate. Without any scientific or factual evidence to back up the claim that in this instance the source of the clenbuterol was contaminated meat eaten by the Athlete, she was unable to discharge the onus on her on the balance of probabilities and it was not open to the RFEA to hold her
blameless

She got 2 years.

 

[ChrisE]

AC is not some Spanish hurdler.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

AC is not some Spanish hurdler.

Actually Onyia didn't become a Spanish hurdler until 2007 ......... (she changed nationality from Nigerian) ....so you never know....

 

[doolols]

AC is not some Spanish hurdler.

No, but if they're to continue to promote the idea of being impartial, they (CAS) can't pick and choose. What's good for the goose ... and all that. Maybe there's some slight difference in the circumstances? But in that hurdler's case, their decision seems to follow logic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, but if they're to continue to promote the idea of being impartial, they (CAS) can't pick and choose. What's good for the goose ... and all that. Maybe there's some slight difference in the circumstances? But in that hurdler's case, their decision seems to follow logic.

No logic, just the laws.

 

[Merckx index]

No, but if they're to continue to promote the idea of being impartial, they (CAS) can't pick and choose. What's good for the goose ... and all that. Maybe there's some slight difference in the circumstances? But in that hurdler's case, their decision seems to follow logic.

I don’t know the details of this hurdler case, but I very much doubt she had a negative test right before the positive. Was she tested for CB in Lausanne eleven days earlier? Even if she had been negative (and forgetting the sensitivity issues, because the negative has to be accepted as such even if it was possible she could have been positive at Cologne on that date), she could have taken CB following that test. Seems like a dumb thing to do if you have just been tested, but maybe she figured she wouldn’t be tested for a while again.

Edit: Perhaps you meant that the same sample was tested first in Lausanne, then later at Cologne. But in any case, there is nothing in this story to indicate she had a negative test for CB immediately prior to the positive.

That’s not a slight difference from Bert’s case, it’s major. That’s why transfusion has to be considered as the only alternative.

@Kings: There doesn’t seem much point in continuing our discussion at len gth on this thread, perhaps it would be more appropriate for a more theoretical thread. I think we are in agreement over what group tests do and do not prove as far as contaminated meat goes. Our main disagreement seems to be over what a group test applied to riders transfusing would or wouldn’t mean.

I also don’t understand you at all when you say that if tests indicated CB contamination was very rare, they would also indicate that transfusion was rare. The CB tests have no relevance to the possibility of transfusion except that the less likely the arbs believe one is, the more likely they must conclude the other is. But that doesn’t seem to be what you are referring to at all, so I don’t follow this point.

I do agree with you that tests of other riders might be hard to interpret, since some of them could be taking CB for PE. That’s why I have been harping for a long time on tests of non-athletes.

 

[ChrisE]

No, but if they're to continue to promote the idea of being impartial, they (CAS) can't pick and choose. What's good for the goose ... and all that. Maybe there's some slight difference in the circumstances? But in that hurdler's case, their decision seems to follow logic.

Of course logic states this is a slam dunk. We will see soon, or will there be another "delay".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don’t know the details of this hurdler case, but I very much doubt she had a negative test right before the positive. Was she tested for CB in Lausanne eleven days earlier? Even if she had been negative (and forgetting the sensitivity issues, because the negative has to be accepted as such even if it was possible she could have been positive at Cologne on that date), she could have taken CB following that test. Seems like a dumb thing to do if you have just been tested, but maybe she figured she wouldn’t be tested for a while again.

Edit: Perhaps you meant that the same sample was tested first in Lausanne, then later at Cologne. But in any case, there is nothing in this story to indicate she had a negative test for CB immediately prior to the positive.

That’s not a slight difference from Bert’s case, it’s major. That’s why transfusion has to be considered as the only alternative.
.........

You addressed the above to 'doolols' - but they did not suggest anything about one test before the other, but I did in the earlier post.

Just to clear it - 2 different tests and as you noted 11 days apart in 2 different labs. She failed both for 2 different substances.
Obviously a huge amount of time between tests (so not comparing them to AC) - what I was showing is that the same arguments were put forth. CAS rejected them all as no effort had been made to establish where the contamination occurred.
This is one thing AC has done - and as yet another CAS case shows this is where the case will be decided.

Of course logic states this is a slam dunk. We will see soon, or will there be another "delay".

I certainly wouldn't say its a slam dunk. AC has a mountain to climb....but he is a pretty smart climber
As for a delay - I would be surprised if this went past the 31st but I would assume next week sometime.
CAS want to have a decision that will withstand an appeal through the Swiss Courts which I expect to happen.

 

[python]

I certainly never said I was on the same wavelength as you - I don't do smoke signals.

i certainly never said you are on the same wavelength...i said you pretend to be.

and no, you have no clue, i repeat NO CLUE, of the point made earlier and the space wasted by quoting irrelevant cases. no one claimed clen was never in front of cas, your problem is completely missing the point about differences in interpreting clen presence until recently.

 

[python]

No logic, just the laws.

this statement is of the same cuteness as your earlier attempts to separate science form laws in the case.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

this statement is of the same cuteness as your earlier attempts to separate science form laws in the case.

I'm sorry, whats a "science form"?

 

[python]

I'm sorry, whats a "science form"?

again, irrelevant commentary on the obvious...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

again, irrelevant commentary on the obvious...

You mean it was a mistake.

this statement is of the same cuteness as your earlier attempts to separate science form laws in the case.

Essentially yes, obviously there will be science and more importantly statistical analysis - but it will be judged on law.

 

[python]

You mean it was
Essentially yes, obviously there will be science and more importantly statistical analysis - but it will be judged on law.

so you have discovered something and cared to enlighten us that there will be science and law. ok.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

so you have discovered something and cared to enlighten us that there will be science and law. ok.

Actually, you were the one who brought up the science and law bit a couple of posts back - I merely responded.
I can't claim all the credit of discovering it.

 

[python]

Actually, you were the one who brought up the science and law bit a couple of posts back - I merely responded.

and you responded with irrelevant cut and paste as was pointed by several posters. i only pointed to your posing as if something new was there

 

[Fatclimber]

Alberto is doing his best to influence his imminent decision as well as make a mockery of the system (some things are just to easy). Nobody will want to retroactively change the results of all the races he's competed in dating back to whenever his suspension would take effect.

I can hear the Schleck-like chorus now, "I do not want to win like this."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

and you responded with irrelevant cut and paste as was pointed by several posters. i only pointed to your posing as if something new was there

I said a "couple of posts back" - a couple is two....

This is the post to which I was referring....

this statement is of the same cuteness as your earlier attempts to separate science form laws in the case.

 

[python]

I said a "couple of posts back" - a couple is two....

This is the post to which I was referring....

what you said and what you pretend to mean has been the issue. even during my absence you managed to flood the thread with utterly irrelevant quotes that were exposed as such by others but you still want to pretend by thickly spreading red herring.

but lets get get back to the issue of joint probability..have you figured it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

what you said and what you pretend to mean has been the issue. even during my absence you managed to flood the thread with utterly irrelevant quotes that were exposed as such by others but you still want to pretend by thickly spreading red herring.

but lets get get back to the issue of joint probability..have you figured it.

I'm sorry I didn't know weren't here.
If I had known you were not here I would never have posted my opinion which I linked to CAS documents on your thread

oh, wait its not your thread.

 

[python]

you are going to expose youself again. slowly....

here is my post you chose to quote in full
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=774051&postcount=1089

it was about my comments to 2 posters discussing joint probability. none of the posters, including m.index misinterpreted or had an issue with it.

you somehow managed to read what was nether written nor implied

It did not say that the transfusion theory could not be contested or your suggestion that CAS have to consider it not credible

please point to where did i say that ?

 

[thehog]

I'm sorry I didn't know weren't here.
If I had known you were not here I would never have posted my opinion which I linked to CAS documents on your thread

oh, wait its not your thread.

Calm down or you'll have one of your infamous meltdowns.

Seriously stop being a d1ck. You've destroyed the thread.

Enough.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you are going to expose youself again. slowly....

here is my post you chose to quote in full
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=774051&postcount=1089

it was about my comments to 2 posters discussing joint probability. none of the posters, including m.index misinterpreted or had an issue with it.

you somehow managed to read what was nether written nor implied please point to where did i say that ?

Sure, it was in relation to the AP article, I will snip to the relevant parts -

for ex, the article clearly states that the 2-step transfusion theory was swept aside b/c bert’s lawyers proved it ‘impossible‘. well, that’s an inaccurate terminology perhaps due to the mistake by the journo or the legal rhetoric of bert’s lawyers…regardless, the cas merely had to consider the 2 step transfusion not credible rather than impossible

The article clearly states that was Bert defense - it did not suggest that CAS had swept it aside.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Calm down or you'll have one of your infamous meltdowns.

Seriously stop being a d1ck. You've destroyed the thread.

Enough.

Maybe you should actually read the thread - where have I not been calm? I am not the one having the meltdown.

 

[KingsMountain]

I also don’t understand you at all when you say that if tests indicated CB contamination was very rare, they would also indicate that transfusion was rare.

But I didn't say that; if it matters to you, please go back and read my post again. I think it is pretty clear, and I doubt that I can explain it better without a good deal more effort. Besides, we'd just be getting in the way of python's current diatribes! [python, you bring a lot of value to this forum; but this particular topic seems to have caused you to make a number of emotionally driven posts, which IMO are devoid of utility. BTW, as you suggest, I had no issue with your comments on joint probability]