Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Walkman]

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.

No way! If Contador is cleared it the biggest disgrace in later years in sports, possibly ever. The dude was sanctioned and then they decided to revoke the decision after the spanish prime minister told them to. The Lance-Affair is a disgrace but at least Novitzky seems very keen on taking Lance down, one way of another. The same can't be said about Contadors case.

In Contador goes down it will send a clear message to other riders:

It doesn't matter who you are or were you are from, get caught and you will go down.

If Contador is cleard people will probably still think that everybody in cycling dopes, wich is very sad, but not surprisingly. The big fishes needs to feel the heat as much as the smaller ones. 2012 could be a good year for Cycling as a sport, as both Lance and AC could be rightly convicted for their nasty habbits.

 

[Cycloid]

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.

I'm not so sure about this. I've wavered a lot. But I do know if cycling goes all the way back to "0" on a Contador conviction, the sport may never recover in terms of public perception from a possible/probable LA conviction.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm not so sure about this. I've wavered a lot. But I do know if cycling goes all the way back to "0" on a Contador conviction, the sport may never recover in terms of public perception from a possible/probable LA conviction.

Every other sport gives dopers free reign and they get to call themselves clean.

Contador was getting a lot less abuse from fans than people who were convicted. Even the commentators I heard treated him differently.

That was while the outcome was uncertain. If hes cleared these people wont suddenly become anti Contador.

 

[The Hitch]

No way! If Contador is cleared it the biggest disgrace in later years in sports, possibly ever. The dude was sanctioned and then they decided to revoke the decision after the spanish prime minister told them to. The Lance-Affair is a disgrace but at least Novitzky seems very keen on taking Lance down, one way of another. The same can't be said about Contadors case.

In Contador goes down it will send a clear message to other riders:

It doesn't matter who you are or were you are from, get caught and you will go down.

If Contador is cleard people will probably still think that everybody in cycling dopes, wich is very sad, but not surprisingly. The big fishes needs to feel the heat as much as the smaller ones. 2012 could be a good year for Cycling as a sport, as both Lance and AC could be rightly convicted for their nasty habbits.

You are talking about within cycling, what a handful of riders will think and that has nothing to do with "public perception".

I am talking about the other 99.9999% of the world, those who do not watch cycling but get told that cyclists are the bad guys who dope and all their heroes are innocent and clean.

Option 1. they are told that Contador was cleared - he might be clean.

Option 2. They are told that he was found guilty - he is another cyclist who doped and the sport is lost. Lets watch something else.

There is no way that these people will think any better of cycling if the outcome is the latter.

Moreover people are open to the idea of athletes being clean., especially if they test + for minor substances and say they took something else which they did not know contained the PED. This defense always works.

Hell, Le Shawn Merrit was banned ant the entire athletics world is convinced he is clean and found it regretable that he was banned. What was his defense?that he ingested something that he did not know contained traces the PED
. They eventually even cut his ban.

Kolo Toure, everybody in England is 100% certain that he was innocent and should not have been banned. What was his defense - that he ingested something that he did not know contained traces the PED

What is Contadors defense? The very same. that he ingested something that he did not know contained traces the PED
And if people believe the others they can believe Contador.

Whether other cyclists are sent a message about doping or not has absolutely nothing to do with what the public perception of cycling will be.

I'm not so sure about this. I've wavered a lot. But I do know if cycling goes all the way back to "0" on a Contador conviction, the sport may never recover in terms of public perception from a possible/probable LA conviction.

Every other sport gives dopers free reign and they get to call themselves clean.

Contador was getting a lot less abuse from fans than people who were convicted. Even the commentators I heard treated him differently.

That was while the outcome was uncertain. If hes cleared these people wont suddenly become anti Contador.

 

[Cycloid]

Contador was getting a lot less abuse from fans than people who were convicted. Even the commentators I heard treated him differently.

That was while the outcome was uncertain. If hes cleared these people wont suddenly become anti Contador.

And for this reason I said IF cycling goes all the way back to "0". I firmly believe it wont and believe cycling is far more resilient than that. But should it prove me wrong, then other pending outcomes have potentially far bigger negative implications.
I don't want to see Contador banned when precedents in cycling and other sports have cleared other athletes.

 

[The Hitch]

And for this reason I said IF cycling goes all the way back to "0". I firmly believe it wont and believe cycling is far more resilient than that. But should it prove me wrong, then other pending outcomes have potentially far bigger negative implications.
I don't want to see Contador banned when precedents in cycling and other sports have cleared other athletes.

Sorry for misunderstanding you.

I agree with you that a Contador ban would make the Lance fallout for cycling worse.

The argument cycling always tries to make is that it is clean now. Lances first win for example was supposed to be a truimph for clean cycling over the dirty past.

Ever since, people have been looking for signs that cycling is clean now." It was dirty before but its clean now". 2011 was a big push in this direction with so much talk and even celebration about how clean the Tour is now.

With this comes the implication that the Lance era was doped. With every proclemation since 2006 that cycling is clean now, comes this implication. So that era is already lost in a way, and with a Contador cleared decison, people will talk about how the sport has moved on since then.

With a Contador dirty decision people will talk about how the sport is stuck in the same problem.

 

[Havetts]

Yes but the people upholding the "Sport is clean" image are going to be ridiculed when (yet) another doping scandal happens. It is a ticking timebomb, thats waiting to go off.

I think when Contador will be acquitted people will say: "See those cyclists dope but they let each other off". I know its hypocrite because of alot of other sports don't even acknowledge dope happens. But when he is banned, I know people will say: "See all cyclists dope." But atleast we can rebute that with the fact we actually tackle people that dope or try to do so.

This case is a disgrace and is a loss/loss-situation no matter what happens.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes but the people upholding the "Sport is clean" image are going to be ridiculed when (yet) another doping scandal happens.

Not neccesarily. Depends who it is. The sport has been ridiculed for Festina, for Pantani for the perception that Lance may not have been clean and then for OP, Ullrick Basso. For Rasmussen Kohl Ricco. Maybe Valverde.

The sport is not ridiculed for Mosquera for Sella for Sinkiewitz. So long as it isnt a big big name or a rider who has just won stages in the Tour, people wont know they tested positive.

I think when Contador will be acquitted people will say: "See those cyclists dope but they let each other off

People dont know who is letting Contador off. They dont know the workings of the case. I dont think they will assume cycling let Contador off.

By my experience people think very highly of anti doping and the science behind it. Thats why they believe all other sports are clean, because dope tests are black and white, dopers get caught easy. "Anyone who cheats gets caught".

If a rider gets caught but let off that tells them the rider may not be dirty after-all. Because if he was the dope test would have got him better.

The dope tests are perfect, faith in science is essential to the mentality that keeps doping away from the mentaility of fans in all other sports.

If they felt dope tests could be passed easy they would not remain so ignorant on the subject.

 

[gregrowlerson]

I find the Contador case to be a disgrace for how long it is/has taken to sort out. How could an answer not be decided on within 12 months of the positive test being taken? This (in this day and age of great science and so forth) I do not understand.

As for the case itself, I certainly believe AC dopes to some degree, as I do the other top GC riders, but is what he was caught with really deserving of a suspension? Is it so bad as to strip the rider of 2 grand tour victories? I would say NO.

I would only hope that he is banned so that my favourite rider has a slim chance of winning the TDF

I do not think that this decision will have much bearing on what goes on in the peloton over the next couple of years. The sport seems to have reduced doping a great deal over the past few years; especially highlighted with the performances in the 2011 TDF. Despite the great temptations, I do not think we will see Pantani '98/99 type performances, or Lance '99-'05 type performances, or T-Mobile '06 type performances, anytime soon.

 

[doolols]

You are talking about within cycling, what a handful of riders will think and that has nothing to do with "public perception". I am talking about the other 99.9999% of the world, those who do not watch cycling but get told that cyclists are the bad guys who dope and all their heroes are innocent and clean.

To me, this is the key difference between Contador and Armstrong. If AC is found guilty and banned, to the general population, that is another of "those cyclists". People have been stripped of wins before.

However, if the Grand Jury find LA guilty of whatever crimes, drug-related, this will be HUGE. He is an enormous figure outside cycling, and the fact that he won the TdF 7 times permeated the consciousness of those outside cycling. Assuming he's found guilty of doping at least, that will be an enormous news story, which will affect the public perception of professional cycling for a long time. IMO, of course.

 

[doolols]

As for the case itself, I certainly believe AC dopes to some degree, as I do the other top GC riders, but is what he was caught with really deserving of a suspension? Is it so bad as to strip the rider of 2 grand tour victories? I would say NO.

So he shouldn't be punished by removing the victories in which he may, or probably, cheated? if he won by unfair means, then that's OK?

The sport seems to have reduced doping a great deal over the past few years; especially highlighted with the performances in the 2011 TDF.

Or maybe the sport has got cleverer at hiding what they do? There were one or two performances in the 2011 TdF which raised eyebrows in this house - AS on the Col du Galibier, for example.

 

[CosmicRocker]

As for the case itself, I certainly believe AC dopes to some degree, as I do the other top GC riders, but is what he was caught with really deserving of a suspension? Is it so bad as to strip the rider of 2 grand tour victories? I would say NO.

This is what I was referring to. He broke the rules . . . . you know, but it was only a little, so let's give him a pass. Back to the Rasmussen case. He broke the rules. He didn't fail a dope test. He was just training in one place and told the powers that be that he was somewhere else. Suspended for 2 years for breaking the rules. What a novel concept ! !

I think if you ban the cheaters, people will respect that more. The perception will be that cycling is trying to do something. What do you think the public perception is of Barry Bonds. He didn't get punished by MLB and MLB is a laughing stock as far as how they have dealt with doping. The NFL is now coming down hard on dopers and getting some respect for it.

Letting Contador off, after 2 positive drug tests, will hurt cycling severely.

 

[LaFlorecita]

This is what I was referring to. He broke the rules . . . . you know, but it was only a little, so let's give him a pass. Back to the Rasmussen case. He broke the rules. He didn't fail a dope test. He was just training in one place and told the powers that be that he was somewhere else. Suspended for 2 years for breaking the rules. What a novel concept ! !

I think if you ban the cheaters, people will respect that more. The perception will be that cycling is trying to do something. What do you think the public perception is of Barry Bonds. He didn't get punished by MLB and MLB is a laughing stock as far as how they have dealt with doping. The NFL is now coming down hard on dopers and getting some respect for it.

Letting Contador off, after 2 positive drug tests, will hurt cycling severely.

Either 1 or 4. Unless you're counting the plasticizer test, there aren't 2 positive tests.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, they didn't let him off because it was only a small amount, but because he proved (this being controversial) meat contamination was the most likely theory.

 

[CosmicRocker]

LaFlorecita,
Either 1 or 4. Unless you're counting the plasticizer test, there aren't 2 positive tests.

I’ll admit that I don’t follow cycling as much as a lot of posters here do. But I have read many times that the A and B samples were BOTH positive, thereby, my case for 2 positives. If 2 samples count as 1 positive, I “misremembered” my math from school. Sorry ! !

Bottom line, it says in the rules that each rider is responsible for what goes in his body. He should be banned.

IMO

 

[doolols]

Bottom line, it says in the rules that each rider is responsible for what goes in his body. He should be banned.

For me, this is the key point. The test show's he's guilty of having the stuff in his body. Maybe reduce a 2 year ban to 1 if he can prove contaminated food (i.e. with samples of the actual steak he had). Which isn't likely.

 

[ChrisE]

For me, this is the key point. The test show's he's guilty of having the stuff in his body. Maybe reduce a 2 year ban to 1 if he can prove contaminated food (i.e. with samples of the actual steak he had). Which isn't likely.

Welcome to the forum. Cosmicrider's post is basically what some of us have been arguing from the outset.

But, since contamination is a possibility, however remote, I am personally for a future rule change where there should be a minimum threshold and anything above that is a ban. There would be some fish that got away due to the natural breakdown of clen in the body over time, but I think this is the fairest system. We had a pretty long debate on this awhile back. Do a search if you wish.

 

[fatandfast]

Alberto make the call.Tell Pedro, thanks for the kind words but don't comment about your innocence. Delgado says your clean, lol.

 

[Angliru]

For me, this is the key point. The test show's he's guilty of having the stuff in his body. Maybe reduce a 2 year ban to 1 if he can prove contaminated food (i.e. with samples of the actual steak he had). Which isn't likely.

Can you give me samples of the last steak that you had? Or samples of any meat that you've had recently? How reasonable of an expectation is that?
Part of the problem with this rule is that unless you have absolute complete control of the manufacture of every product that you consume how can you be responsible for what it contains? The practicality of having a portable lab as part of your team's entourage or of your own and the technicians to man it is beyond ridiculous.

 

[ggusta]

So he shouldn't be punished by removing the victories in which he may, or probably, cheated? if he won by unfair means, then that's OK?



Or maybe the sport has got cleverer at hiding what they do? There were one or two performances in the 2011 TdF which raised eyebrows in this house - AS on the Col du Galibier, for example.

I think to punish him is to ignore the joke that sports have allowed themselves to become. "We are taking the victories away from you, and giving them to the guy who finished 2nd, and all but a fool believes he isn't do things that are just as bad. But we just haven't caught the second place guy. And taking it from him would just mean giving it to yet another cheater and on and on." It's not a Contador problem. It's a problem of the integrity of the entire sport. Cycling doesn't enjoy the widespread appeal of Football (either version), Baseball, Basketball, even Tennis or Hockey. It's already a red-headed stepchild. Any mis-step just reinforces the image. 'Nothing to see here folks, just go back to watching whatever you normally watch.'

He played not by the rules but by the culture that the sport not only permitted but fostered. And now they are punishing him for it. Am I the only one that this strikes as a little bit odd? What happens to juniors who show a little promise but refuse any PED usage. Do you think that the investment continues if he starts losing to juniors who don't refuse? Wake up.

The sport talks out of one side of its mouth for the general public, 'We will not tolerate any doping whatsoever and will ban anyone we catch!'

And from the other side, 'Look guys, this is making us look terrible you have to be more cautious. This isn't like Armstrong where the public WANTED to keep believing his BS in the 1st place.'

 

[doolols]

Can you give me samples of the last steak that you had? Or samples of any meat that you've had recently? How reasonable of an expectation is that?

Of course, it's impossible. That's the point. The burden of proof (as has been detailed before) should be on Contador to prove his side of the story.

 

[doolols]

"We are taking the victories away from you, and giving them to the guy who finished 2nd, and all but a fool believes he isn't do things that are just as bad. But we just haven't caught the second place guy. And taking it from him would just mean giving it to yet another cheater and on and on." It's not a Contador problem.

The system isn't perfect. But the last thing you need to do is to remove whatever teeth the rules currently have.

Of course, Contador isn't the problem, but the only way of getting the whole sport to adjust its thinking on this subject is to prove that no one is immune.

 

[ggusta]

The system isn't perfect. But the last thing you need to do is to remove whatever teeth the rules currently have.

Of course, Contador isn't the problem, but the only way of getting the whole sport to adjust its thinking on this subject is to prove that no one is immune.

Agree to disagree. Seems there have been plenty of guys who were already not immune and the sport hasn't adjusted. One yellow jersey taken away in the last 5 years. One yellow jersey removed while the race was still going on (Contador's 1st TDF).

Can we ban the entire power structure governing the sport to a place with gray bars and 3 hots and a cot for 2 years and see how that works just for a little variety?

 

[BroDeal]

Of course, it's impossible. That's the point. The burden of proof (as has been detailed before) should be on Contador to prove his side of the story.

What is the point of asking for the impossible? Why have a trial at all? Just send him mail saying, "Sorry. You tested positive for XXX. We have made the rules so it is impossible to contest the result. You are banned for the next two years. Have a nice day."

 

[Siriuscat]

The system isn't perfect. But the last thing you need to do is to remove whatever teeth the rules currently have.

Of course, Contador isn't the problem, but the only way of getting the whole sport to adjust its thinking on this subject is to prove that no one is immune.

There will always be immune riders, that protection has now passed to Frandy because they are in the Hogs back pocket and the right cheques will be passed onto the fat pat retirement fund. As long as the links from Verbruggen to McQuaid to Armstrong to Bruyneel exists in the sport corruption will be the biggest problem it has.

Berto is just a pawn in the game despite being the best GT rider on the planet, he went against the rulein 2009 when he DARED to beat Armstong, he lost the protection, it was only a matter of time before they got him for something.

Ban him, we lose the best rider on the planet, GT wins till he comes back will always be questioned "what if Berto had been there" don't ban him it's immaterial, cycling has already humiliated itself because of the length of time its taken to nearly get to a result.

 

[doolols]

What is the point of asking for the impossible? Why have a trial at all? Just send him mail saying, "Sorry. You tested positive for XXX. We have made the rules so it is impossible to contest the result. You are banned for the next two years. Have a nice day."

Sounds good to me. There should be no right of appeal. If the rules state no signs of performance-enhancing drugs or procedures, then them's the rules you agree to ride under.

cycling has already humiliated itself because of the length of time its taken to nearly get to a result.

There is that. It's all a bit of a farce. But they can't allow someone who has been 'proven' (by the tests available) to have broken the rules to 'get away with it', because then there's no point in having any rules at all, and it becomes a free for all.