He was always going to do the Tour and a 2nd GT, though. Be it the Giro, or the Vuelta. He needed a new challenge. The deal he struck with Zomegnan may have included an appearance fee.
- Status
- Oct 30, 2011
- 2,639
- 0
- 0
RobbieCanuck said:
Secrecy allows people to testify without subjecting themselves to a trial by media. Sometimes you might get a testimony in private that no-one would make in public. It's a tough call, and I do agree that the secrecy doesn't help [the appearance of the trial], but at least there is a trial.
- Jun 18, 2011
- 195
- 0
- 0
Caruut said:
Agreed, especially with Omerta. People would be much less likely to testify against someone if they knew that the entire peloton would find out.
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
i quoted your entire post b/c i agree with its spirit entirely.RobbieCanuck said:
where i feel you may have simplified things is in blue.
far from being a lawyer, i feel blaming cas is not proper on legal grounds. one of the litigating sides is to blame, i'm not sure at this point which one...
they, the cas, have typically had closed-door hearings. but the final ruling has been made public in the absolute majority of cases i followed.
in my educated guess, the secrecy and a ban on any leaks comes from one of the litigating sides whilst the cas rules simply respect those rights...
who has most to hide ? that's the party to blame !
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
airstream said:
Calling someone a "fanboy" is an insult and you know it. It is intended to mock and slander.
Moreover trying to discredit someones argument every single *****ing time by accusing them of being biased is ****ing annoying.
PS thanks to Zam and Scullster.
There is actually a lot of information we have about this case:
1) the dates of Bert’s CB positives, and the level on each date; from these data, one can estimate how much CB Bert had in his system, and the actual range of estimates that WADA calculated were provided in the RFEC report.
2) the date and probably the level of the DEHP positive. Based on the leaked information, WADA has basically confirmed the date first given in the internet story last year, and since this date seems to be correct, my guess is that the amount is, also. At any rate, the level can’t be too much lower than what was originally reported, or WADA wouldn’t have a good case.
3) The prevalence of contaminated meat in Spain, as based on testing results.
It seems to me that the most critical piece of information we don’t have—assuming Bert has not managed to identify the exact source of the meat he ate—is the details of his passport and other tests. WADA has to show that Bert could have taken CB as well as withdrawn blood without being flagged. In fact, as Ashenden’s studies have shown, one can withdraw blood and probably still pass the passport, but as some have argued on this forum, WADA does not want to be in the position of implying that the passport is ineffective. At a minimum, they need to show that the blood could have been withdrawn during a period when Bert was not tested for the passport. The offseason scenario helps them here, because he could have withdrawn blood just once and frozen it, rather than going through repeated withdrawal-transfusion cycles during the season. It’s probably easier for the arbs to imagine beating the passport on a one-time withdrawal then doing it several times, even though in the latter case, withdrawal is always followed immediately by transfusion. It would look even better, of course, if WADA can point to a suspect passport that might in fact be interpreted as resulting from blood withdrawal. Again, this possibility is something we can’t evaluate—there was that rumor of the very high HT/Hb in May--but could have played a critical role in the hearing.
IMO, though, tests for CB are actually more important. One thing clear about the transfusion scenario is that Bert had to take a fairly large dose of CB—to account for the CB levels detected--and probably do so daily over a period of several days or more (since CB as a single dose probably wouldn’t have much of a beneficial effect). So it’s critical to show not simply that there was a period when he wasn’t tested, as I assume there frequently was, but that the gaps between tests are long enough so that he would not have felt it was a major risk to have a detectable amount of CB in his body for some length of time. Though I don’t believe that arguments about the mental state of an athlete should carry much weight in a doping decision, personally I have always wondered why Bert would take CB when he could probably accomplish the same thing without it. In this respect, the offseason scenario is a little weaker than the June scenario. If he needed to lose weight after the DL, he might have felt he couldn’t do it in time for the TDF without chemical help. Whereas in the offseason, there wouldn’t be any big hurry.
Barring direct proof of the contaminated meat, Bert’s only chance is to cast as much doubt on the transfusion scenario as possible. To this end, I expect Bert’s team focused a lot of their efforts on the passport and other tests, painting him Mr. Clean.
1) the dates of Bert’s CB positives, and the level on each date; from these data, one can estimate how much CB Bert had in his system, and the actual range of estimates that WADA calculated were provided in the RFEC report.
2) the date and probably the level of the DEHP positive. Based on the leaked information, WADA has basically confirmed the date first given in the internet story last year, and since this date seems to be correct, my guess is that the amount is, also. At any rate, the level can’t be too much lower than what was originally reported, or WADA wouldn’t have a good case.
3) The prevalence of contaminated meat in Spain, as based on testing results.
It seems to me that the most critical piece of information we don’t have—assuming Bert has not managed to identify the exact source of the meat he ate—is the details of his passport and other tests. WADA has to show that Bert could have taken CB as well as withdrawn blood without being flagged. In fact, as Ashenden’s studies have shown, one can withdraw blood and probably still pass the passport, but as some have argued on this forum, WADA does not want to be in the position of implying that the passport is ineffective. At a minimum, they need to show that the blood could have been withdrawn during a period when Bert was not tested for the passport. The offseason scenario helps them here, because he could have withdrawn blood just once and frozen it, rather than going through repeated withdrawal-transfusion cycles during the season. It’s probably easier for the arbs to imagine beating the passport on a one-time withdrawal then doing it several times, even though in the latter case, withdrawal is always followed immediately by transfusion. It would look even better, of course, if WADA can point to a suspect passport that might in fact be interpreted as resulting from blood withdrawal. Again, this possibility is something we can’t evaluate—there was that rumor of the very high HT/Hb in May--but could have played a critical role in the hearing.
IMO, though, tests for CB are actually more important. One thing clear about the transfusion scenario is that Bert had to take a fairly large dose of CB—to account for the CB levels detected--and probably do so daily over a period of several days or more (since CB as a single dose probably wouldn’t have much of a beneficial effect). So it’s critical to show not simply that there was a period when he wasn’t tested, as I assume there frequently was, but that the gaps between tests are long enough so that he would not have felt it was a major risk to have a detectable amount of CB in his body for some length of time. Though I don’t believe that arguments about the mental state of an athlete should carry much weight in a doping decision, personally I have always wondered why Bert would take CB when he could probably accomplish the same thing without it. In this respect, the offseason scenario is a little weaker than the June scenario. If he needed to lose weight after the DL, he might have felt he couldn’t do it in time for the TDF without chemical help. Whereas in the offseason, there wouldn’t be any big hurry.
Barring direct proof of the contaminated meat, Bert’s only chance is to cast as much doubt on the transfusion scenario as possible. To this end, I expect Bert’s team focused a lot of their efforts on the passport and other tests, painting him Mr. Clean.
Caruut said:
Actually MI's summary was fairly spot on this respect imho.
AC doesn't have to prove contamination as has been discussed over and over again. He has to make contamination the most likely explanation and instead of proving just that he seems to have chosen the other way by showing that all others including transfusion are less likely. I think that is exactly the strategy AC's legal team have used. I still also think that WADA has taken a huge leap of faith in constructing such a detailed transfusion theory. As MI indicated that means making some pretty tricky assumptions along the way on timing of CB-intake, amount of CB-intake, timing of withdrawal of the blood, the exact treatment of the blood (splitiing it or not), the timing of reinfusion of the blood and/or plasma (basically doing two infusions), the pharmokinetics of AC (a.o. his weight during competition), his urination level during competition, the fact that he apparently managed to use large amounts of CB over a prolongued period of time undetected, a blood passport without any major anomalies apparently, etc.
But still we have to wait and see how much we really know of both sides' strategies. Oh well, it keeps the forum busy, doesn't it?
Regards
GJ
Sorry, can't resist it any further.
Ditto, in context of this thread.
The real discussions are interesting.
The Hitch said:
Ditto, in context of this thread.
The real discussions are interesting.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
GJB123 said:
WADA haven't taken a 'leap of faith', you have - by putting to much 'faith' in the current news reports. WADA will not be talking to the press during the proceedings - any reports are either speculation or coming from the defense, neither are reliable.
While AC does not have to "prove contamination", neither does WADA have to prove transfusion - CAS will rule by the balance of probabilities which theory is the most likely scenario. If WADA can show that the possibility of transfusion is there then Contador will struggle to show contamination as the likely scenario.
- Oct 30, 2011
- 2,639
- 0
- 0
GJB123 said:
I should not have used the word prove - in my mind Contador has a mountain to climb to make contamination a likely scenario, which is what I should have said. As of now, he's had a positive, and just said "It was steak", as we all know very well. Would have thought he'd have sought to protect his repuatation by going public if he could actually demonstrate that this was the case (ie. tracing the meat, etc.).
Maybe in many years time we'll read a news reportnwhere he says "I genuinely have no idea how I got busted for clen, I wasn't taking it. I was on other stuff, but clen wasn't in my medicine box". A Floyd-like confession.
- Jan 15, 2011
- 75
- 0
- 0
just saw this...
"Alberto Contador to lose Tour de France title and face one-year ban after positive test for banned drug clenbuterol"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ositive-test-for-banned-drug-clenbuterol.html
edit:
wait...maybe scratch that...the lemond fb page posted it just now and i just copied/pasted the link, which now looks like it may be from May now that I've read it...sorry about that
"Alberto Contador to lose Tour de France title and face one-year ban after positive test for banned drug clenbuterol"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ositive-test-for-banned-drug-clenbuterol.html
edit:
wait...maybe scratch that...the lemond fb page posted it just now and i just copied/pasted the link, which now looks like it may be from May now that I've read it...sorry about that
- Jan 27, 2011
- 3,399
- 0
- 0
The decision will be made between 15-20 january said Matthieu Reeb against RMC.
Source: http://www.nu.nl/sport/2698951/uitspraak-contador-midden-januari.html
Source: http://www.nu.nl/sport/2698951/uitspraak-contador-midden-januari.html
Havetts said:
The way I read this was that they had made their decision but needed a month to write it up. Actually scrub that its just plain ambiguous and you could read it either way depending on your level of sceptism surrounding the process!
- Sep 25, 2009
- 7,527
- 1
- 0
i don't think this frankie andreu's somewhat simplified opinion piece has been posted here:
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/contador-case-cyclings-integrity-line
several comments are also interesting...
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/contador-case-cyclings-integrity-line
several comments are also interesting...
python said:
here's someone who doesn't agree with frankie:
http://es.eurosport.yahoo.com/25122011/47/perico-pide-sancionen-contador.html
The CAS has changed the date of release of the Contador decision.
According to a spokesman for the panel members, the change in wording came about because, "We believe that we are all going to hell, but we are not certain we will be able to come back to render our decision after it freezes over."
The Contador decision will now be officially announced when the cows come home.
According to a spokesman for the panel members, the change in wording came about because, "We believe that we are all going to hell, but we are not certain we will be able to come back to render our decision after it freezes over."
The Contador decision will now be officially announced when the cows come home.
He tested positive on both A and B samples. He broke the rules ! !
Michael Rasmussen was suspended. It DID NOT involve doping, but he broke the rules. And he got suspended.
So, you are going to suspend some riders for breaking the rules, but other riders get a pass because they broke the rules "only a little" or because "I didn't mean to". Pathetic ! !
If Contador doesn't get suspended, the general public's perception of cycling is going to go down to the depths it has never been.
Michael Rasmussen was suspended. It DID NOT involve doping, but he broke the rules. And he got suspended.
So, you are going to suspend some riders for breaking the rules, but other riders get a pass because they broke the rules "only a little" or because "I didn't mean to". Pathetic ! !
If Contador doesn't get suspended, the general public's perception of cycling is going to go down to the depths it has never been.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
CosmicRocker said:
I think letting of Contador would help public perception of cycling because like with other obvious dopers like Pep Nandrolone they will say "OH but he was cleared" whereas if he is suspended then the biggest rider of the generation is suddenly a convicted doper and cycling goes all the way back to 0.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram