Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[BroDeal]

It was one of the more ham fisted efforts at trying to sway a jury member anyone's ever seen. Just weak and blatant. I am hoping things go well for Alberto because I am a huge fan, but he needs to get at least a couple months just for agreeing to indulge in that degree of tackiness. tsk tsk tsk.

They should give him seven months with credit for the seven months served before the Spaniards acquited him.

Or they should give him one year with credit for time served. He could still race the Tour.

 

[Ferminal]

They should give him seven months with credit for the seven months served before the Spaniards acquited him.

Or they should give him one year with credit for time served. He could still race the Tour.

I was thinking this through yesterday. Even if the most likely outcome is a ban, he could still be more than a 50% chance to race the Tour.

 

[crapna]

I suggest two years test ban for the bloodsuckers due to dabbling.

 

[LaFlorecita]

The decision could be delayed p) longer, later than the set timeframe from the 15th to the 20th, Velonews reports. The judges want to make a watertight resolution. Which once again confirms my suspicion that a decision has already been made.

 

[Cimber]

The decision could be delayed p) longer, later than the set timeframe from the 15th to the 20th, Velonews reports. The judges want to make a watertight resolution. Which once again confirms my suspicion that a decision has already been made.

The new deadline will be august 1st, well after the Tour

Anyways, here is the article:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/01/news/possible-delay-in-contador-ruling_203070

among other thing it says:
"All three members are practicing attorneys and the report said that they want to make sure the final ruling is air tight and will leave no room for a possible appeal.
CAS rulings can be challenged in Swiss civil court, but that option has only been exercised in a few cases. "

If I were to speculate I would predict that they are gonna ban him. Bertie has ealier stated that he is willing to keep appealing the case, and that could very well be why they are trying to really make it air tight (to prevent that). I dont think WADA or UCI would appeal a aquittance, so I read it as if a ban is coming.

 

[Cimber]

On the other hand another theory could be this: this comes right after Becca's accusations of bribery. Meybe the need extra time to make sure that conspiracy theories like the one from Becca can be easily rejected.

 

[hrotha]

They should give him seven months with credit for the seven months served before the Spaniards acquited him.

Or they should give him one year with credit for time served. He could still race the Tour.

Lol? He served seven months? Hahahaha.

 

[python]

On the other hand another theory could be this: this comes right after Becca's accusations of bribery. Meybe the need extra time to make sure that conspiracy theories like the one from Becca can be easily rejected.

i don't think a court like cas would bother based on becca's conspiracy theory. it simply does not have the mechanism for 'vetting' their arbitrators looking back.

iow, for cas checking the credence of becca's claims would involve either another internal cas review by an independent entity/body/arbitrator(s) of the substance of the case or an extra-judicial investigation of the israeli arbitrator connections to contador. none of these are likely.

also, the wording 'airtight' is likely NOT referring to 'appeal-proof' in the swiss federal court. the reason (i speculate) is that (since recently) the federal court stated it will admit very few special cases (like the civil rights violation etc).

i reckon, another postponement has to do with the panel opinion spit (2/1 rather than 3/0) over a technical issue (for ex. is plasticicer evidence legally strong enough or how do we justify a threshold for clen etc etc?) they want to cover all eventualities because they are likely concerned with establishing an important legal precedent

just an opinion...

 

[Cimber]

Now this is a very interesting article based on leaked information. Sadly it is in Danish but u can try to google-translate it:

http://spn.dk/cykling/article2660164.ece

Basically WADA was close to leave the hearing cos CAS rejected the use of one of their experts regarding the DEHP/transfusion theory. Apparently it was Michael Ashenden whose testimony should “prove” that DEHP means that transfusion was the most likely source of the positive clen test.

One of the defence's expert, Poul Scott, argued that it couldn’t by used as evidence as the finding of Clen and DEHP was from two different samples from different days (if I understand the article correctly). CAS told WADA that they could cross examine Poul Scott (the defense’s witness) instead if they wanted to pursue this theory, but they werent allowed to use Michael Ashenden as witness/expert .

This might be very important for the outcome imho, since it sounds as if that was a huge blow to WADA’s DEHP/transfusion theory that they werent allowed to use that particular expert.

 

[hrotha]

One of the defence's expert, Poul Scott, argued that it couldn’t by used as evidence as the finding of Clen and DEHP was from two different samples from different days (if I understand the article correctly). CAS told WADA that they could cross examine Poul Scott (the defense’s witness) instead if they wanted to pursue this theory, but they werent allowed to use Michael Ashenden as witness/expert

Wow. That's ***.

 

[Cimber]

Also its interesting to note that it is one of WADA's lawyers who is leaking this information (hence also take into consideration that the leaked info will be biased accordingly). This might further explain why CAS postpones the verdict to make it "air tight" - to counter such criticism. If they leaked info is true they will need a good explanation about who they rejected taht expert I reckon.

 

[ChrisE]

OK, who in here said UCI would not use the plasticizer reasoning? In all of this excitement, I really cannot remember who said that. It may have been me, for all I know.

We need to narrow down who to rib.

 

[The Hitch]

He would miss the tour but would probably ride the olympic TT and go full tilt for the vuelta.

Unacceptable.

If Contador cant stop us from the Cadel brigade during the Tour, God help us

They should give him seven months with credit for the seven months served before the Spaniards acquited him.

Or they should give him one year with credit for time served. He could still race the Tour.

I think if he were to get the previous 6 as time served than since bans are supposed to be year round (so you miss every month once, rather than say miss July twice but dont get January), they would probably make the ban from February 14th.

In that case he misses the Vuelta by about a week, so the 6 month ban would just be a cruel way of giving him a year out.

 

[python]

it would help one of the local baiters to learn reading before he gets whacked .

 

[Cimber]

OK, who in here said UCI would not use the plasticizer reasoning? In all of this excitement, I really cannot remember who said that. It may have been me, for all I know.

We need to narrow down who to rib.

Well, UCI didnt. WADA did (or tried to at least)

 

[python]

Well, UCI didnt. WADA did

dont reason with him b/c he has the tendency of 'hearing trees falling in the forest' ...

 

[LaFlorecita]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...-cas-hearing/2012/01/11/gIQA9KWLqP_story.html

The WADA complaining article in English.

 

[python]

and another english version (1hr ago)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=145021018

The three CAS judges, however, stunned WADA lawyers by blocking oral testimony from one of their witnesses, Australian doping expert Michael Ashenden, hearing participants told the AP.

Hearing participants said Ashenden, if allowed, could have expanded on the theory that Contador may have had a blood transfusion on July 20, followed the next day by an injection of blood plasma.

 

[Publicus]

The new deadline will be august 1st, well after the Tour

Anyways, here is the article:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/01/news/possible-delay-in-contador-ruling_203070

among other thing it says:
"All three members are practicing attorneys and the report said that they want to make sure the final ruling is air tight and will leave no room for a possible appeal.
CAS rulings can be challenged in Swiss civil court, but that option has only been exercised in a few cases. "

If I were to speculate I would predict that they are gonna ban him. Bertie has ealier stated that he is willing to keep appealing the case, and that could very well be why they are trying to really make it air tight (to prevent that). I dont think WADA or UCI would appeal a aquittance, so I read it as if a ban is coming.

Based on the information floated in that article today, it sounds like WADA may be more than likely to appeal an acquittal.

EDIT: And for the record, I seem to recall lots of folks around here suggesting that it was the Contador team leaking during the actual hearing. It seems to me if that were the case, we would have known about the general facts of this argument during that time. From a legal stand point, I understand why CAS excluded Asheden's testimony (little probative value (little more than speculation) and highly prejudicial to AC) and I don't think there will be a strong basis for appeal (one day spike, non-validated test). I think WADA's actions here are deplorable (they are definitely trying to cast dispersions on Contador here).

 

[ChrisE]

Well, UCI didnt. WADA did (or tried to at least)

My apologies...WADA.

So, in the intense silence in the forest, where we hear nothing but crickets and pseudo-scientists chirping, who said WADA would not introduce the plasticizer test?

 

[python]

*** several issues from the english version are standing out to me:

- what procedural reasons did cas panel use to not allow ahenden's cross examination ?

- it appears wada did file a formal complaint to cas general secretary that indirectly questioned barak's ethics.

- ashenden is a blood experts, so not allowing his cross examination can only be seen that he had evidence of blood transfusion from the blood passports and that evidence was rejected by the panel ?

 

[ChrisE]

Yes, baiting equals calling you out on your BS and now you going postal with ad-hominems trying to make your past statements and personal attacks on others go away. Sorry, the internets doesn't forget.

You were all over MI etal about this awhile back, in a thread I recently reviewed, and now you cannot own up to the fact you were wrong.

 

[perico]

Based on the information floated in that article today, it sounds like WADA may be more than likely to appeal an acquittal.

EDIT: And for the record, I seem to recall lots of folks around here suggesting that it was the Contador team leaking during the actual hearing. It seems to me if that were the case, we would have known about the general facts of this argument during that time. From a legal stand point, I understand why CAS excluded Asheden's testimony (little probative value (little more than speculation) and highly prejudicial to AC) and I don't think there will be a strong basis for appeal (one day spike, non-validated test). I think WADA's actions here are deplorable (they are definitely trying to cast dispersions on Contador here).

I'm in full agreement. Ashenden's testimony, however accurate it might be, would be hearsay and theory. You don't convict on possibilities.

 

[python]

we already saw in the very thread that chriss e admitted to making up statements about the uci to flame and bate. he then proceeded to bait and flame more instead of discussing the news and issues.


be prepared to get exposed more on your tactics.

 

[roundabout]

I'm in full agreement. Ashenden's testimony, however accurate it might be, would be hearsay and theory. You don't convict on possibilities.

As opposed to the hearsay that Contador might have found a contaminated cow when test results show that it's almost impossible?