Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[python]

OK - that absolutely clears that question up thanks. In that case there's plenty of support for the separate blood and plasma transfusions scenario, and no obvious logical counter, assuming the July 20 CB analysis was done by Cologne.

WADA may well have a pretty robust case here, but who knows what the lawyers will manage to make of it all.

if what was leaked is a true wada position on the transfusion amounts and sequence (including some plasma injection) it would almost certainly not be a novel doping method. thus, the wada scenario is certainly not implausible in theory.

whether the theory is credible in practice - that is in the specific circumstances applied to contador, including his individual pharmacokinetics - remains a question and depends on the myriad of scientific details most of which have never been leaked. not knowing those details is the main reason I don’t engage in a speculation that could easily turn into chasing geese…

i am also willing to acknowledge a change in my own position about a key piece of evidence - unlike during the rfec hearing it looks like wada may have introduced plastisizer tests to back its transfusion theory. remarkably, some of the detected plastisizer amounts as reported by el pais 2-3 days ago, coincide almost exactly with those reported by hans seppelt ages ago.

will it matter ? i am still not clear.

putting aside some questionable wada assumptions regarding contador’s urination rates, it would mostly depend on how contador’s blood passport baselines ( for haemoglobin, % rets and off-score) compared to the values found on 20, 21 and 22 july.

not only we don’t know those values, we don’t even know if contador was blood tested on those days…without the blood passport corroboration, i feel the plasticizer test results, though very serious, can be significantly undercut on several grounds….

then, the transfusion theory probability must be compared to the probability of contamination.. where does contamination stand ?

again, we were denied many details. but judging the type of certain witnesses called, it seems to me that even wada does not discount the likely fact that the meat was indeed purchased, procured and consumed on given days.

as i always stated, based on what i was able to gather and analyze, the probability of contamination - if the meat purchase story has been verified - is about as probable (if not slightly more) as the probability of transfusion.

 

[c&cfan]

You believe he races clean?

WHAT????? of course not.

however i truly believe that he isn't a ricco, andy, di luca, etc.
I see him as a great person and a legendary rider, that loves this sport.
he dopes because he has to.

he does not win because he dopes more.

In fact, there's no one clean at least in the top ten in any important race, in any important sport, so i don't see your point.

 

[Walkman]

WHAT????? of course not.

however i truly believe that he isn't a ricco, andy, di luca, etc.

I'm not really what one would call an Andy fan but how come you put him in that kind of company? I'd say there is a difference between him and Ricco.

And I don't know how classy AC is. After Andy's chain poped he flew by just to Andys right while Andy was basiclly standing still. Later he pushed the pace with Sammy and Menchov. That's all ok, but when he started bull****ting after the finish and saying he didn't see Andy and that he only followed Menchovs and Sammy's wheel, that was classless.

he dopes because he has to.

he does not win because he dopes more.

And you know this, how? Him being linked with OP, the fact that he has ridden under Bruyneel, Riss and Giuseppe Martinelli, coincidently the three sport directors that has coached the three most notorious dopers during the last 15 years, Armstrong, Basso and Pantani. Add to that the Astana story that came out after the -09 Tour about medical waste and the positive test.

For a guy that doesn't dope more than the next guy, say Gesink, there are a lot of stories and rumors abour AC. Just saying.

By the way, are you saying everybody dopes the same amount and that is effect everyone the same way? Since you phrased it:

he does not win because he dopes more

I can only interprete it as if he is doping as much as the next guy, or less, and is wining because of his talent. Geeez...

In fact, there's no one clean at least in the top ten in any important race, in any important sport, so i don't see your point.

Really? Again, you know this, how? Because you have been a professional athlete in several different sports and competed on the highest level?

Or is it just you being a keyboard "know-it-all" trying to cope with the fact that your favourite rider is the biggest cheat in the game and by claiming that everybody does it, make it ok? Because doping just levels the playing field and the most talanted always ends up winning? Yeah, that's probably it...

 

[c&cfan]

I'm not really what one would call an Andy fan but how come you put him in that kind of company? I'd say there is a difference between him and Ricco.

And I don't know how classy AC is. After Andy's chain poped he flew by just to Andys right while Andy was basiclly standing still. Later he pushed the pace with Sammy and Menchov. That's all ok, but when he started bull****ting after the finish and saying he didn't see Andy and that he only followed Menchovs and Sammy's wheel, that was classless.



And you know this, how? Him being linked with OP, the fact that he has ridden under Bruyneel, Riss and Giuseppe Martinelli, coincidently the three sport directors that has coached the three most notorious dopers during the last 15 years, Armstrong, Basso and Pantani. Add to that the Astana story that came out after the -09 Tour about medical waste and the positive test.

For a guy that doesn't dope more than the next guy, say Gesink, there are a lot of stories and rumors abour AC. Just saying.

By the way, are you saying everybody dopes the same amount and that is effect everyone the same way? Since you phrased it:



I can only interprete it as if he is doping as much as the next guy, or less, and is wining because of his talent. Geeez...



Really? Again, you know this, how? Because you have been a professional athlete in several different sports and competed on the highest level?

Or is it just you being a keyboard "know-it-all" trying to cope with the fact that your favourite rider is the biggest cheat in the game and by claiming that everybody does it, make it ok? Because doping just levels the playing field and the most talanted always ends up winning? Yeah, that's probably it...

well, almost every time.

i believe in AC bolt phelps messi federer etc.

about the rest, if you want to continue a hypocrite that's your dogma.
for me it's time to end the hypocrisy.

i mean, "you" have to be really ignorant to fail to see what happened to mr nobody until 22 (andy), the guy that was always out climbed by boom, and then, just because you can, call for "justice", when it is pretty well known that that kind of "justice" is nothing more than utopia and stupidity.

AC deserves his titles, he wasn't caught using "heavy" stuff, i don't see him as ricco or andy or even merckx, i see him as the champion, not the dirty ******bag.

 

[Cobblestones]

Cobble, thanks, I was hoping someone else would pick up the ball here. I thought about having more time for the body to adjust to the transfusion, but was not sure exactly what that means. Does a rider have any ill or odd effects immediately after a transfusion which dissipate over a day or two? If so, then it makes sense to do it a little ahead of time.

Wrt plasma infusion, again, I have been missing something. I think what WADA is proposing, according to El Pais, is a plasma storage involving dessication. IOW, it is stored as a powder, easily transportable, which can be quickly reconstituted with distilled water. This makes it somewhat easier to understand a second transfusion. Bert wanted to reduce his HT further on July 21, so instead of using saline, he just added water to the powder and put that in. In addition to the salts present in normal saline, there would be other salts and numerous other substances that would have a beneficial effect. Not particularly PE, but restorative in the same sense that a saline infusion would be, probably a little more. In any case, with the powder, it would be even easier to do than saline, as all you need is sterile water.

(Keep in mind, Bert would not even have to transfuse the reconstituted plasma. He could drink it, just the way you would drink a salt solution. Some of the beneficial substances would be degraded in the digestive system, but some would be absorbed, and it would be perfectly legal to do this, AFAIK. However, drinking would not lower the HT as effectively as transfusion would).

To summarize: transfusion of red cells on July 19 or 20, followed by a second transfusion of plasma on July 21. The second transfusion I believe would have been planned all along, as a way of further lowering the HT. This being the case, it would have made sense to save the dried plasma, rather than use it to reconstitute the red cells. Saline was used for the latter.

Are you sure the July 20 sample was not analyzed in Cologne? I thought that was only speculation. If it was analyzed somewhere else, and it turns out it would have been positive, then as noted earlier, it’s possible Bert took CB before the Tour and his positives reflect that and not transfusion. I have made a rough calculation that for Bert to pass all CB tests beginning with the start of the Tour, at 2 ng/ml, the half-life of the second slower clearance of CB from the body would have to be on the order of eight days. I don’t know what it actually is. In cattle it has been estimated as 3 days, but the initial clearance in cattle is much faster than in humans, 10 hr vs. 35 hr. So this scenario might be possible.

Alternatively, as you say, Bert might have transfused on July 19/20. Then there is no need to bring in a second transfusion of plasma alone. It may be that WADA is pursuing both this scenario and the one where there is a second transfusion. The reason I think they might is because the calculated CB dose reported, 200 ug, is higher than necessary to explain 50 pg/ml if transfusion took place on July 21, but might be necessary if transfusion took place a day earlier. OTOH, if WADA were pursuing this possibility, they would surely have tested the July 20 sample at Cologne by now, and would not even be considering the alternative scenario where plasma is infused the following day.

Edit:



If this is correct, then we are down to just the second, plasma transfusion. This would be what WADA is hanging its hat one.


Now I think the remaining pieces of the puzzle fall in place:

1) different times at which DEHP and CB entered Bert’s system: check
2) transfusion of red cells before the rest day: check
3) second transfusion of plasma alone: check

Sure, it’s a little more involved than ideal, it would be more plausible if DEHP and CB entered the body at the same time, but it has a lot of the elements you would expect:

1) off-season PED use
2) off-season blood withdrawal
3) use of high tech storage procedures to avoid/reduce need for withdrawal-transfusion cycles

I do not know whether the July 20 sample was tested in Lausanne or in Cologne. Someone in this thread said it was in Lausanne, someone else argued it was in Cologne. I don't know which and I don't know whether it was tested for plasticizer metabolites as well.

Another comment about plasma vs. saline infusion. It is thought that plasma has a (small) positive effect on oxygen transport. That might provide the reason why to prefer plasma over saline. Apparently the effect is about 1.5%. That may be enough to justify the overhead when comparing plasma to saline.

The last mystery to explain would be why doing the two things on two different (consecutive) days. I said in my previous post why you would like to transfuse the packed cells 2 days before a big stage (the body needs to adjust). Plasma (or saline) would have a bigger effect closer to a big stage. The biggest effect of infusing it 2 days before the Tourmalet stage would be to make Bertie pee more often on the rest day and not much else.

There is one point of which I am unsure, though. While the plasticizer is connected to the special bags made for blood cell storage (and are much less prevalent in bags of saline), I do not know whether clen would accumulate more in the bag with the packed cells or the one with the plasma (or the dried plasma as someone suggested). I suspect the latter (which would make most sense), but as I said, I don't know for sure.

I think I understand the logic of the scenario which was put forth by WADA. It does make sense. As a lot of you have pointed out, what I don't understand is why WADA is so very specific with the numbers on clen, RBC urination rates etc. Many different scenarios might have played out.

 

[sniper]

One reason why the WADA has a so specifically elaborated hypothesis might be that they may have actually traced the soigneur who did the HUMO interview.

 

[sniper]

I do not know whether the July 20 sample was tested in Lausanne or in Cologne. Someone in this thread said it was in Lausanne, someone else argued it was in Cologne. I don't know which and I don't know whether it was tested for plasticizer metabolites as well.

Another comment about plasma vs. saline infusion. It is thought that plasma has a (small) positive effect on oxygen transport. That might provide the reason why to prefer plasma over saline. Apparently the effect is about 1.5%. That may be enough to justify the overhead when comparing plasma to saline.

The last mystery to explain would be why doing the two things on two different (consecutive) days. I said in my previous post why you would like to transfuse the packed cells 2 days before a big stage (the body needs to adjust). Plasma (or saline) would have a bigger effect closer to a big stage. The biggest effect of infusing it 2 days before the Tourmalet stage would be to make Bertie pee more often on the rest day and not much else.

There is one point of which I am unsure, though. While the plasticizer is connected to the special bags made for blood cell storage (and are much less prevalent in bags of saline), I do not know whether clen would accumulate more in the bag with the packed cells or the one with the plasma (or the dried plasma as someone suggested). I suspect the latter (which would make most sense), but as I said, I don't know for sure.

I think I understand the logic of the scenario which was put forth by WADA. It does make sense. As a lot of you have pointed out, what I don't understand is why WADA is so very specific with the numbers on clen, RBC urination rates etc. Many different scenarios might have played out.

One reason might be that the WADA have actually traced the soigneur who did the HUMO interview.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

no, not the only. plasma infusions have been around for awhile, at least since the fuentos times. what do you think the spanish police found in those 100+ bags ? frozen plasma !! other confessed dopers also described plasma injections. it has many advantages over saline, primarily that it contained body's own hormones plus it can be deep frozen for a long storage.

also, as i mentioned earlier, it's far from the established fact that all pre-positive samples were tested in lausanne. in fact i am growing more confident that 20 july sample was tested by cologne. i provided the reasoning earlier.

To the blue - where did you provide the reasoning? I have read you dismissing the dates of the Lausanne and Cologne tests, but you have provided no verifiable alternative.

The dates and locations of the tests that I have provided come from the RFEC verdict. While certainly possible that there are errors I think it is a far more credible source than anonymous leaks to the media.

 

[python]

To the blue - where did you provide the reasoning? I have read you dismissing the dates of the Lausanne and Cologne tests, but you have provided no verifiable alternative.

The dates and locations of the tests that I have provided come from the RFEC verdict. While certainly possible that there are errors I think it is a far more credible source than anonymous leaks to the media.

read this thread a couple of pages back. what you stated and provided did not coinside. rfec ruling did (not- edited) specify which test was conducted in which lab on a particular date.

 

[Race Radio]

One reason might be that the WADA have actually traced the soigneur who did the HUMO interview.

Or mechanic

 

[Dr. Maserati]

read this thread a couple of pages back. what you stated and provided did not coinside.

Where exactly?

rfec ruling did specify which test was conducted in which lab on a particular date.

Exactly - which is why I am curious that you dismiss it for some unverifiable story in the media?

 

[python]

Where exactly?

in this thread...

i'm using a small portable device now with limited capabilities, but since it's you who claimed being proud of being ...pedantic , prove you're as good as your word.

... I am curious that you dismiss it for some unverifiable story in the media?

that's you invention or misreading. i never said anything close to what you attributed to me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

in this thread...

i'm using a small portable device now with limited capabilities, but since it's you who claimed being proud of being ...pedantic , prove you're as good as your word.

You are the one who made the claim against me - so you should back it up or withdraw it. It is impossible to show something that I did not suggest.

i
that's you invention or misreading. i never said anything close to what you attributed to me.

Well this is what you said, just a cpouple of posts ago "in fact i am growing more confident that 20 july sample was tested by cologne. i provided the reasoning earlier."

You haven't provided "the reasoning" so I assume its the media - if it isn't then where does this theory about the 20th sample being tested come from?

 

[python]

You are the one who made the claim against me - so you should back it up or withdraw it. It is impossible to show something that I did not suggest.

i could care less how you perceive general internet forum statements as those 'against you'. if you view differing opinions as 'against you', i suggest you look into the content rather than ego.

"in fact i am growing more confident that 20 july sample was tested by cologne. i provided the reasoning earlier."

You haven't provided "the reasoning" so I assume its the media - if it isn't then where does this theory about the 20th sample being tested come from?

firstly if you read, 'i am growing more confident..' as (you stated just a post earlier) dismissing something, you are either misreading or, more likely, intentionally misrepresenting. in one word, inventing.

secondly, i did provide reasoning. the fact that dr. maserati chose not to find it, despite claiming pedantry, as we've seen so many times, speaks for it self.

to remind you, the rfec ruling DID not claim what you claimed. my contention is that - at least - the 20th july sample was likely tested by cologne b/c they also tested that sample for plasticizers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i could care less how you perceive general internet forum statements as those 'against you'. if you view differing opinions as 'against you', i suggest you look into the content rather than ego.

firstly if you read, 'i am growing more confident..' as (you stated just a post earlier) dismissing something, you are either misreading or, more likely, intentionally misrepresenting. in one word, inventing.

secondly, i did provide reasoning. the fact that dr. maserati chose not to find it, despite claiming pedantry, as we've seen so many times, speaks for it self.

to remind you, the rfec ruling DID not claim what you claimed. my contention is that - at least - the 20th july sample was likely tested by cologne b/c they also tested that sample for plasticizers.

This is from the RFEC ruling - by all means you can dismiss it if it doesn't suit your argument, but to do so questions your objectivity.

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

 

[python]

This is from the RFEC ruling - by all means you can dismiss it if it doesn't suit your argument, but to do so questions your objectivity.

as i stated repeatedly several times despite your misrepresentations, i have not dismissed anything. i consistently stressed in every post i made the lack of hard confirmed information and thus my reference to lack of clarity with respect to final judgement. your claims of me lacking objectivity are your own biases.

to repeat, it's an extremely rare occasion when 2 labs test the same urine sample from the same athlete on the same day BEFORE he was declared positive. doing so requires splitting the often already insufficient amount of urine into two containers, employing 2 different air carriers into 2 different countries and absorbing double expenses...never done unless a very special case.

thus my reasoning for assuming cologne stands as stated w/o dismissing other possibilities.

 

[Merckx index]

Python:

whether the theory is credible in practice - that is in the specific circumstances applied to contador, including his individual pharmacokinetics - remains a question and depends on the myriad of scientific details most of which have never been leaked. not knowing those details is the main reason I don’t engage in a speculation that could easily turn into chasing geese…

I can agree with “specific circumstances” as far as whether he had the opportunity to bring frozen cells to the Tour and transfuse them, but since other riders have apparently pulled this off, I assume he could. Wrt pharmacokinetics, unless Bert is some kind of biological freak previously unknown to science, transfusion can definitely account for the CB found in his system. I’m by no means the only person who has gone through the calculations—based on published studies—and demonstrated this. We can argue about how much CB he had to take, and for how long, but there are scenarios that fall well within the realm of the possible. Whether the arbs will buy them or not, of course, is a different matter. They might also find the two transfusion scenario far-fetched.

putting aside some questionable wada assumptions regarding contador’s urination rates, it would mostly depend on how contador’s blood passport baselines ( for haemoglobin, % rets and off-score) compared to the values found on 20, 21 and 22 july.

not only we don’t know those values, we don’t even know if contador was blood tested on those days…without the blood passport corroboration, i feel the plasticizer test results, though very serious, can be significantly undercut on several grounds….

One important point WADA needs to establish is that there was a period during the offseason (as it appears their case is based on withdrawal then) in which Bert was not tested, and so could have both taken CB and withdrawn blood. But since the period required is not very long, I don’t see this as a particular problem. It might be more difficult if they were basing their theory on a June withdrawal, but it seems they are not.

If he was blood tested during the critical July dates, I would think that would have been mentioned at RFEC, rather than just a very general summary that he always passed his passports. Or that it might have leaked out by now. If not, it would be very interesting to see if Ashenden would argue, in keeping with his own published studies, that a negative passport is no guarantee of blood manipulation (especially transfusion alone, which is much harder to detect than withdrawal). GJB has always insisted that WADA would be shooting itself in the foot to make this case.

I think the most likely alternative is that he just wasn’t blood tested then. If that proves to be the case, he has no argument at all against transfusion, except the ones we have seen leaked (wouldn’t take the chance, side effects of CB too great, pharmacokinetics), none of which IMO is very strong.

as i always stated, based on what i was able to gather and analyze, the probability of contamination - if the meat purchase story has been verified - is about as probable (if not slightly more) as the probability of transfusion.

I agree with most of your post up to this final conclusion. I have no idea how you come to this. Based on everything we have seen, there is essentially zero evidence for contamination. Nada. Zilch. Just because one can demonstrate where the meat was purchased, and possibly where the cow originated from, doesn’t mean one has any evidence of contamination. One can endlessly speculate that there is was a one in a million cow in Spain, or that it was meat imported from abroad that evaded the inspection, but speculation should not carry the weight of evidence. Contador’s own statistics expert argued that only a tiny fraction of cattle are tested. There would be no reason at all to make such a weak and frankly disingenuous claim if there were positive evidence of contamination.

Cobble:

There is one point of which I am unsure, though. While the plasticizer is connected to the special bags made for blood cell storage (and are much less prevalent in bags of saline), I do not know whether clen would accumulate more in the bag with the packed cells or the one with the plasma (or the dried plasma as someone suggested). I suspect the latter (which would make most sense), but as I said, I don't know for sure.

CB is mostly in the plasma, so when that is separated from the red cells, CB ends up mostly there. Remember, DEHP accumulates through leaching from the bag, so there is no DEHP (above normal levels) until the material is transferred to a certain kind of bag. CB was in the blood from the beginning, and just goes wherever the plasma does.

By the way, almost all transfusions involve PVC tubing, so some DEHP would be expected to accompany even saline or plasma transfusions. Presumably not as much, though, as occurs in a blood bag, which has a much larger exposed surface area, plus the exposure occurs over a considerable length of time.

 

[python]

merckx index, i think you missed my main point.

the [wada] scenarios that 'fall within the realm of possibilities' were never discounted by me.

i only compared their hypothetical probability, unknown to the public but possible for sure, to the much more sensitive to real verification entity of contador inventing the entire 'meat purchased by a friend' story.

that's my opinion on the basis of what i learned to this point. certainly, any news may change my opinion.

as regards the data/conclusions when an athlete was not tested, i'm afraid cas will take their usual stance - if not available, it's both irrelevant and inadmissible.

IOW, if contador or wada lack some data but articulate its importance, it is likely to be dismissed.

for example, if wada lacks 20, 21, 22 july blood tests, i reckon, it's to contador's advantage.

by the same token, if contador lacks sufficient number of negative clenbuterol tests pre-tdf (or a negative hair test) it's to his disadvantage.

 

[Merckx index]

i only compared their hypothetical probability, unknown to the public but possible for sure, to the much more sensitive to real verification entity of contador inventing the entire 'meat purchased by a friend' story.

Are you saying that you think it's still possible that the contaminated meat story can be verified? That they might at this late date be able to trace it? Of course that news would change everything. It would trump even the most elegant proof that transfusion was possible.

But if they couldn't trace it by the RFEC hearing, after all that time, why would they be able to now? Again, I don't see how knowing where the meat was sold helps. There was probably 0-1 cattle that tested positive in Spain this past year or two, so even if they identified the exact steer that went into Bert's gullet, the odds are overwhelming that it would not have tested positive. Bert could argue that it was never actually tested, that it could have been positive, but that is right back where he was all along.

Unless I'm really missing something here, I don't see how anything less than the smoking meat helps at this point. Are you saying they might trace the meat to some "hot spot" where contamination had been shown before? That might sway the arbs, I suppose, though, realistically, the odds of contaminated meat even in that case are very small.

as regards the data/conclusions when an athlete was not tested, i'm afraid cas will take their usual stance - if not available, it's both irrelevant and inadmissible.

IOW, if contador or wada lack some data but articulate its importance, it is likely to be dismissed.

for example, if wada lacks 20, 21, 22 july blood tests, i reckon, it's to contador's advantage.

I agree, if WADA is trying to prove that transfusion took place, to the comfortable satisfaction standard. Everything that supports that scenario helps, and everything missing weakens the case. My point was just that that information is not needed to prove transfusion is more likely than contamination. Absent actual proof of contaminated meat, or extremely strong evidence, the transfusion scenario does not have to be very strong to win out head-to-head. It is much more important for Bert to prove a negative passport than for WADA to prove a positive one.

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that my original position, that Bert is guilty of both transfusion and CB, is valid. Posters have pointed out to me that there are two different standards, a probable 50+% standard to prove it was CB (50+% likely it was transfusion), and a higher, comfortable standard to prove transfusion. But if everyone agrees it was one or the other (less than 1-2% possibility it could be something else), doesn't showing that contamination is less than 1% likely based on statistics constitute a prima facie case for comfortable satisfaction for transfusion?

Some lawyer help me out here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

agree with this.

he's been highly confident throughout. the same for Riis. they've been planning ahead, singing out loud which races AC will be racing next year, etc.

glad 2 see you are a fanboy.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One reason might be that the WADA have actually traced the soigneur who did the HUMO interview.

RaceRadio is on the right track.
mechanic

 

[hrotha]

One reason might be that the WADA have actually traced the soigneur who did the HUMO interview.

That would be pretty remarkable. The HUMO interview said Contador took clen and withdrew blood after the Dauphiné, which isn't the same scenario WADA is allegedly pushing.

 

[airstream]

however i truly believe that he isn't a ricco, andy, di luca, etc.
I see him as a great person and a legendary rider, that loves this sport.
he dopes because he has to.

he does not win because he dopes more.

It would be interesting for me to see your reaction if he gets banned. Probably such a democratic and overly tactful in your preferences fan as you will stop following cycling at all.

 

[Descender]

I say one year backdated to July.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that my original position, that Bert is guilty of both transfusion and CB, is valid. Posters have pointed out to me that there are two different standards, a probable 50+% standard to prove it was CB (50+% likely it was transfusion), and a higher, comfortable standard to prove transfusion. But if everyone agrees it was one or the other (less than 1-2% possibility it could be something else), doesn't showing that contamination is less than 1% likely based on statistics constitute a prima facie case for comfortable satisfaction for transfusion

You need to stop with all this logical stuff you will never get it. Imagine one side shows that the chance of contamination might be as high as 1%, and the other side shows that the likelihood of transfusion is 55%. Bert loses his case on balance of probability (as understood by the adjudicators) but he can't be sanctioned for the transfusion, because there is no comfortable satisfaction. Your argument hinges on the eccentric scientific notion that the full range of probabilities will add to 100%. Such mathematical pedantry has no place in a legal system.

HTH