Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[hrotha]

Yep, he says the steak come from the usual Elgoibar suppliers, or at least that's how I interpret it. He says the traceability is perfect, but then goes on to explain that, apparently, you can't go back further back from the supplier, which I found rather odd. Maybe he just means that he, as the shop owner, has no way of knowing where the meat ultimately came from (other than "from our usual Elgoibar suppliers") and that the authorities would know, but then it's odd to claim he knows it wasn't Basque (maybe he's just trying to avoid the Basque meat industry from becoming tainted in the eyes of the public opinion?).

Anyway, according to him, he bought all his meat from the same Elgoibar suppliers. I don't know if these were mere intermediaries or the actual slaughterhouse, but at any rate his version is that the meat/animals that got to Elgoibar weren't Basque.

 

[Benotti69]

Doesnt matter what we believe. If every ride who the clinic suspected being doped would be banned we would only be left with a few poor riders. Considering the history of cycling there will always be doubt regarding every star there is. Especially a guy as good as Contador. Luckily ppl arent banned based on that.

A few poor riders? You ridden pro then?

Getting to the level of a pro is serious. I wouldn't have a problem with Bassons winning a TdF. He was a talented rider. Kimmage winning a monument, another talented amateur who made it into the pro ranks, who stood a great chance of winning the ToB(Britain) as an amateur except for some unfortunate punctures and weak team mates.

No there are no poor riders in the pro peloton who ride clean, they are made to look poor compared to the PED'd pros.

 

[python]

I don't understand.

As far as I remember one of Contador's arguments in the Spanish hearing was the insufficient testing for clenbuterol in the Basque Country. Now with a bit more digging it seems that the meat didn't come from there.

as i pointed out some place earlier, this very argument has all the elements of ambiguity and duality characteristics of legal speak depending on which side makes it.

otoh, the european testing statistics pointing to the lack of contamination in cattle is used by contador's lawyers as a point that contador could not be held accountable for lack of 'due diligence or negligence'. on the other, if the meat indeed originated from outside the basque country, it's still subject to exceptionally low probability of contamination provided it's not a south american contraband..

Second point, the butcher says himself that the meat comes from the same supplier. I don't see where it says that on this occasion the meat was bought from a different supplier.

the point i meant to stress, and perhaps diluted, was that the butcher claims certainty of non-basque origin of the meat. the supplier sounds like a local intermediary...

regardless, this sounds like new information and the tribunal will have to evaluate the truthfulness of butcher's statements along with all other evidence of the stake purchase..

 

[christianpetrin]

Well, I'm not a Contador fan, but lately was hoping he wouldn't get any ban. It is bad for cycling, it is bad for the races. With AC racing, the races gets more interesting.

But after just reading his haemoglobin story (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-cas-hearing-gets-underway-in-lausanne), well, if that's true, then I truly want him to be fully banned. It is, IMO, a clear indication of doping. And I can say it by experience: as I am and every other hard working and CLEAN cyclists know, haemoglobin NEVER goes up that much, NEVER, specially during the season, when it tends to, actually, DROP.

I have been training like hell this past 3 years and have been monitoring my health by doing lots of exams, including monitoring my haemoglobin. And it seems the more I train, the lower it gets. It's been pretty stable at aroung 14-14.2, with no big spikes whatsoever.

So for me, AC has definetely doped. No question in my mind. And that's why UCI and WADA are trying to ban him so hard. They know just as much as I know AC is a DOPER.

 

[GJB123]

Can someone please explain to me in laymen's terms what the finding of the spike in haemoglobin in May shows?

In addition I have the following questions:
- Does it mean he injected blood at that time or does it mean he withdrew blood at that time? I would suspect it shows likelihood he injected blood at that time.
- In any case wouldn't we expect a shift in haemoglobin in July if he indeed transfused during the Tour and was that indeed the case, did the haemoglobin spike during the Tour?
- What was Contador doing, what race was he racing when he supposedly transfused in May (the spike in haemoglobin)?
- If they show he transfused in May, shouldn't they be trying to get him banned for that rather than the clen in July? Or will they be arguing that transfusing in May increases the likelihood he may have been transfusing in July also, because I cannot see how it can be proof of that?

Regards
GJ

 

[Cimber]

A few poor riders? You ridden pro then?

Getting to the level of a pro is serious. I wouldn't have a problem with Bassons winning a TdF. He was a talented rider. Kimmage winning a monument, another talented amateur who made it into the pro ranks, who stood a great chance of winning the ToB(Britain) as an amateur except for some unfortunate punctures and weak team mates.

No there are no poor riders in the pro peloton who ride clean, they are made to look poor compared to the PED'd pros.

"poor" is used in a relative term. Oh and just w8 and see. If Hagen continues success it wont be long till ppl start to find him suspecious. Also, u seem seem to suggest that all the winners are dopers, since there is no chance a clean rider can win. I beg to differ.

 

[Ferminal]

this thread is 2 months too early and 18 months too late...as the decision wont be known until january 2012 and, so far, there's little that hasn't appeared in the dozen+ previous threads on the same topic.

personally i'm confident that cas is independent enough to arrive at a factual and evidence-based decision rather than a political one.

my own assessment of the publicly available evidence (of which i kept a detailed and careful record) is 50/50.

if contador shows with 51% probability that there was no likely transfusion (and wada fails to overturn it) he walks.

wada's refusal to continue investing in the plasticizer test make contador's legal arguments weightier. otoh, if there were glitches in his blood passport (which was never made public and supposedly ashenden will testify to that) contador may receive 2 years.

a number of critical factors that could shed more light remain unknown...

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).

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?

 

[GJB123]

No, if I understand correctly, Contador showed a preponderance of likeliness that Clen entered his system unwittingly and that he shouldn't have been on guard for contaminated meat because he was in the EU. He didn't use clen while in the Tour based on the numbers provided, I think both parties agree on that point.

UCI/WADA can now show that contaminated meat was actually not the most likely way of getting clen into your system, by showing that transfusion is much more likeley. Hence the use of the blood passport. That still leaves me with questions I posed on page 3.:

Can someone please explain to me in laymen's terms what the finding of the spike in haemoglobin in May shows?

In addition I have the following questions:
- Does it mean he injected blood at that time or does it mean he withdrew blood at that time? I would suspect it shows likelihood he injected blood at that time.
- In any case wouldn't we expect a shift in haemoglobin in July if he indeed transfused during the Tour and was that indeed the case, did the haemoglobin spike during the Tour?
- What was Contador doing, what race was he racing when he supposedly transfused in May (the spike in haemoglobin)?
- If they show he transfused in May, shouldn't they be trying to get him banned for that rather than the clen in July? Or will they be arguing that transfusing in May increases the likelihood he may have been transfusing in July also, because I cannot see how it can be proof of that?

Regards
GJ

 

[roundabout]

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?

My understanding is that CAS can do a full review of the case.

“The Panel shall have full power to review the facts and the law. It may issue a
new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and
refer the case back to the previous instance.”

From the code.

 

[GJB123]

My understanding is that CAS can do a full review of the case.

“The Panel shall have full power to review the facts and the law. It may issue a
new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and
refer the case back to the previous instance.”

From the code.

CAS can do a full review, that was cleared up some time ago. But they are stuck with the Clen-case. Contador cannot and will not be prosecuted before CAS on blood transfusion charges. The blood transfusion thing is wholly secondary to the Clen-case in that it may make transfusion more likely as a reason for the Clen being there than accidental ingestion through contaminated food.

Regards
GJ

 

[LaFlorecita]

Can someone please explain to me in laymen's terms what the finding of the spike in haemoglobin in May shows?

In addition I have the following questions:
- Does it mean he injected blood at that time or does it mean he withdrew blood at that time? I would suspect it shows likelihood he injected blood at that time.
- In any case wouldn't we expect a shift in haemoglobin in July if he indeed transfused during the Tour and was that indeed the case, did the haemoglobin spike during the Tour?
- What was Contador doing, what race was he racing when he supposedly transfused in May (the spike in haemoglobin)?
- If they show he transfused in May, shouldn't they be trying to get him banned for that rather than the clen in July? Or will they be arguing that transfusing in May increases the likelihood he may have been transfusing in July also, because I cannot see how it can be proof of that?

Regards
GJ

He wasn't racing. He had taken a month off. Which would mean that if he did something with his blood, it was probably withdrawing it. But I can't understand how withdrawal of blood would increase the level of haemoglobin? Is there someone who could explain that to me? Because I can understand that when you inject blood, the level increases, but I would think that if blood is withdrawn, the level stays the same.

 

[GJB123]

He wasn't racing. He had taken a month off. Which would mean that if he did something with his blood, it was probably withdrawing it. But I can't understand how withdrawal of blood would increase the level of haemoglobin? Is there someone who could explain that to me? Because I can understand that when you inject blood, the level increases, but I would think that if blood is withdrawn, the level stays the same.

Okay withdrawing seems reasonably compatible with it being a training period, but indeed how can haemoglobin rise after a withdrawal?

Regards
GJ

 

[LaFlorecita]

Okay withdrawing seems reasonably compatible with it being a training period, but indeed how can haemoglobin rise after a withdrawal?

Regards
GJ

Exactly, I would very much appreciate someone explaining this.

 

[Ferminal]

I think it would more likely be a result of exogenous blood boosters.

Either that or he was "managing" his values and messed it up.

 

[hrotha]

Okay withdrawing seems reasonably compatible with it being a training period, but indeed how can haemoglobin rise after a withdrawal?

Regards
GJ

Would using EPO to mask the effects of a transfusion had increased the haemoglobin levels if he miscalculated the doses? That would be a lot of miscalculations for a top rider though.

edit: ninja'd.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I think it would more likely be a result of exogenous blood boosters.

Either that or he was "managing" his values and messed it up.

Oh okay thanks.

 

[GJB123]

Still I would appreciate the input from our two most prominent pseudo-scientists, Python and Merckx Index , to some of my questions. I confess to having very little knowledge of the direct, visible consequences transfusing in and out have on the blood values.

Regards
GJ

 

[just some guy]

I´m not exactly sure on this, but if you withdraw blood there will be a drop in hemoglobin - but in a healthy person the body will repair and replace the level - but if this has been during a period of removal the body may believe that there is something wrong with the system and over produce red blood cells.

I´m not sure if this occurs after 1 bag removal or must take multiple to shock the system so to speak.

or of course it may be a bad EPO dose (as pointed out by the boys ) with or without a combined with a natural spike.

 

[thehog]

Great suit mind you.....

 

[LaFlorecita]

Great suit mind you.....

As always...

 

[LaFlorecita]

I read somewhere on Twitter the first session only took twenty minutes... Don't know how credible the source is though.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yo Quiero EPO!

toypistol going to bring his cap pistol to the party

 

[hrotha]

I read somewhere on Twitter the first session only took twenty minutes... Don't know how credible the source is though.

Maybe they thought it wouldn't be fitting if the hearing didn't take 3-4 months.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Maybe they thought it wouldn't be fitting if the hearing didn't take 3-4 months.

 

[La Pandera]

i predict no ban, he'll keep his victory and schleck will whine in the press. saxo will increase sponsorship and cobo will be announced as contador's latest super-dom.

I'm hoping you're right in all aspects.