Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[python]

DEHP clearance is undeniably faster than clenbuterol, but the times of peak concentration in urine do not differ that much. Maybe a few hours but certainly not twenty four...

that's correct.

i only want to point out that the technical and scientific small details would also depend on the route of administration (that is ingested as contador says or injected as wada says). elimination of the 2 stage of metabolism surely speeds things up by a couple of hours. again, specific concentrations are needed to make conclusive judgements. then we need distinguish peak blood concentration from peak urine concentration...

peak concentration in blood for clen iirc is about 4 hours after ingestion . dehp ? i can not recall for sure but about 1-2 hr.

 

[thehog]

I know, but it doesn't make his argument stronger, at least not from a legal point of view. It's like breaking in without signs of a break in. Ashenden would probably say it's possible you left the door open...

Problem being Contador is not on trial for an illegal transfusion. He is appealing the positive for Clen. Even if they were able to prove a transfusion took place it would have no bearing on the case. CAS can only rule on the positive for Clen as per the rules of UCI and WADA. CAS doesn’t have the power to define new laws on new testing processes. They can only rule on the laws provided by the governing body that are already in place.

WADA are suggesting that if the positive came from a transfusion which proves “intent” to use rather than Contador current plea of “unknowingly” ingesting the substance.

 

[airstream]

It looks like someone's honour can be saved only with the hole in the head.

 

[Race Radio]

Problem being Contador is not on trial for an illegal transfusion. He is appealing the positive for Clen. Even if they were able to prove a transfusion took place it would have no bearing on the case. CAS can only rule on the positive for Clen as per the rules of UCI and WADA. CAS doesn’t have the power to define new laws on new testing processes. They can only rule on the laws provided by the governing body that are already in place.

WADA are suggesting that if the positive came from a transfusion then use proves “intent” to use rather than Contador current plea of “unknowingly” ingesting the substance.

Contador says the Clen came from beef. WADA says it came from a transfusion. Both are allowed to present evidence that supports their case so evidence of a transfusion is relevant.

It appears that CAS only stopped Ashenden from talking about the Plastizier tests, not the rest of the transfusion evidence. Moose bring up a very good point about Daubert (Not Scott).

If the WADA case hinged on plastizers then they did not have a good case

 

[Race Radio]

Contador says the Clen came from beef. WADA says it came from a transfusion. Both are allowed to present evidence that supports their case so evidence of a transfusion is relevant.

It appears that CAS only stopped Ashenden from talking about the Plastizier tests, not the rest of the transfusion evidence. Moose bring up a very good point about Daubert (Not Scott).

If the WADA case hinged on plastizers then they did not have a good case

 

[Cimber]

If the WADA case hinged on plastizers then they did not have a good case

That might just be it. Apart from the plastizers I reckon there wont be anything new compared to what info/evidence the RFEC made their verdict on

 

[Cimacoppi48]

It is odd that the tribunal simply didn't let Asheden testify and then discount whatever part of his testimony was found to be irrelevant. Arbitrations are known for wide, wide latitude in admitting evidence "for whatever probative value it might have."

 

[BroDeal]

I know, but it doesn't make his argument stronger, at least not from a legal point of view. It's like breaking in without signs of a break in. Ashenden would probably say it's possible you left the door open...

WADA's two step transfusion theory reminds me of the geocentric universe theory and the complexity that had to be embraced to explain things like retrograde motion of the planets.

 

[LaFlorecita]

WADA's two step transfusion theory reminds me of the geocentric universe theory and the complexity that had to be embraced to explain things like retrograde motion of the planets.

Funny, that's exactly what sprang to my mind as well.

 

[Publicus]

It is odd that the tribunal simply didn't let Asheden testify and then discount whatever part of his testimony was found to be irrelevant. Arbitrations are known for wide, wide latitude in admitting evidence "for whatever probative value it might have."

Think of it this way: the panel could allowed it, but if they decided that AC did not meet his burden, then allowIng him to testify as to how the clen entered his system via transfusion (plasticizers data was clearly allowed) with nothing more than his supposition, AC would have a ripe basis for appeal (and likely to win that appeal). Conversely, not allowing that aspect of Ashden's testimony does not harm WADA to the same extent since (1) they don't have to prove he transfused to succeed on the merits and (2) they felt the harm could be mitigated through cross examination. I don't think the exclusion of this testimony is dispositive that AC will be acquitted.

 

[Cimber]

Think of it this way: the panel could allowed it, but if they decided that AC did not meet his burden, then allowIng him to testify as to how the clen entered his system via transfusion (plasticizers data was clearly allowed) with nothing more than his supposition, AC would have a ripe basis for appeal (and likely to win that appeal). Conversely, not allowing that aspect of Ashden's testimony does not harm WADA to the same extent since (1) they don't have to prove he transfused to succeed on the merits and (2) they felt the harm could be mitigated through cross examination. I don't think the exclusion of this testimony is dispositive that AC will be acquitted.

Nevertheless, WADA was furious about it

 

[python]

a lot of conversations are around the personality and a decision of only one arbitrator but no comments were made on what seems tome very significant...

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.

2 other experienced lawyers - including the one appointed by wada/uci were of the same mind as the panel president regarding the exclusion of ashenden.

were they also corrupted or is wada just desperate b/c it's used to cas rubber-stamping feds ?

 

[Publicus]

Nevertheless, WADA was furious about it

They spent a lot of time concocting that scenario. I can see why they were upset. It may not matter in the end if AC is banned for two years.

 

[Cimber]

They spent a lot of time concocting that scenario. I can see why they were upset. It may not matter in the end if AC is banned for two years.

Ofc not, but I dont see the event as a positive thing for WADA cos then why even bother with it in the first place if its better for their case to not follow that path

 

[Barrus]

I might be a minority on this, but I don't see anything strange with this decision. It is not upon WADA to proof how it got into Contador's system and due to the fact that there is no proof of such a transfusion, anything stated would be speculative and an undue burden upon the defence, who cannot disproof this.

It is well possible that the delay in the judgment is because of this circumstance and not because of, what certain people have speculated, ensure that the decision is held up when appealed by Contador.

 

[Cimber]

Btw judging from cyclingnew's article it seems as if he was rejected since his tests/theories arent approved/validated and since data doesnt match his theory (DEHP and Clen found in two different tests from two different days):

Contador’s lawyers objected to Ashenden’s testimony and CAS appear to have held Ashenden back on the basis that he may have gone into further detail on explaining how the traces of clenbuterol may have been linked to a possible blood transfusion, although no test for such measure has been ratified by the WADA code. Cyclingnews attempted to contact Ashenden but he was unavailable for comment.

AP added that, “Contador's lawyers argued that if he transfused, clenbuterol and plastic residues would have appeared together in his July 21 sample and because they didn't, the transfusion scenario was impossible.”

 

[KingsMountain]

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.

2 other experienced lawyers - including the one appointed by wada/uci were of the same mind as the panel president regarding the exclusion of ashenden.
?

It's tricky gleaning information from a single news source. The above passage could mean that the three were in agreement, or the reporter could simply be informing the reader that the CAS uses three judges. Or it could mean the decision was the result of a 2-1 vote, but the details of how the judges reached their decision may not have been communicated to anyone else.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Damn, I missed the party and the flurry of activity it produced today.

As I have often said here, forget about the plasticizers - this case will be decided on the clenbuterol and if AC can establish how it entered his system, that burden still remains.


There were due to be 23 witnesses - most of those with expertise in various fields, so I am not surprised some did not make it through. I doubt Contadors lie dtector guy got selected either.

Maybe Python can help here - I think what WADA may have objected to is that Ashenden may have been there to analysis the Bio Passport, not the plasticizer test? Just a thought.

 

[Jamsque]

I am now officially 100% pessimistic about the outcome of this hearing. Contador is going to get off scot free.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I am now officially 100% pessimistic about the outcome of this hearing. Contador is going to get off scot free.

You're pessimistic because you think that CAS should have automatically allowed a witness to testify as to a theory that may not have any scientifically-accepted backing or peer review?

Seriously? This is standard procedure. Ashenden is not a fact witness. He's an expert witness.

 

[Speedzero]

Just an additional thought, further to Publicus's comments, regarding the CAS decision to exclude Ashenden's testimony. I both do and do not understand the judges' decision, for the reasons below.

In support of the judges' decision: Sounds like the key point is that the plasticizers were found in a different test, on a different day, than the clen.

In that case, what is the relevance of the plasticizers? WADA's argument about separate transfusions seems to be that if he transfused on one day (the plasticizer day), then it's plausible he transfused on the clen-positive day as well.

But when you state it that way, it becomes apparent that it's just like an argument, in a burglary trial, that if Defendant X committed such-and-such a burglary on a different day, it's plausible he committed this one as well. And that kind of evidence is routinely (at least here in the US) excluded as prejudicial.

Now here's what I don't understand. These evidentiary decisions are generally made in cases tried to a jury. The judge decides that even if the prior bad act may have some bearing on the likelihood that the defendant did it again, its evidentiary value is outweighed by the likelihood that it will prejudice the jury against the defendant.

Here, there is no jury. Whom were the judges protecting from prejudicial influence? Themselves? Couldn't they just have said "we'll listen to it for what it's worth"?

 

[The Hitch]

Contador is going to get off scot free.

You did make a very similar post about how Contador was going to win the Tour.

Logic said back then he would not (Giro was brutal) and logic says now that he will not (he cant prove what he is supposed to).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am now officially 100% pessimistic about the outcome of this hearing. Contador is going to get off scot free.

It would not surprise me if all this noise that has appeared recently is an attempt to disrupt the process and add a degree of confusion.

I was following todays developments on twitter and there is a lot of bewilderment with this case - when in fact even if this story is true it has little material impact on the case.
All this does is shake peoples confidence in the system - and any result - even though in principal I agree with the plasticizer argument being left out.

 

[BroDeal]

But when you state it that way, it becomes apparent that it's just like an argument, in a burglary trial, that if Defendant X committed such-and-such a burglary on a different day, it's plausible he committed this one as well. And that kind of evidence is routinely (at least here in the US) excluded as prejudicial.

Isn't this more like being charged with breaking into a museum and stealing the Pink Panther diamond. When the prosecution finds out that the diamond disappeared a day after the break-in, it alleges that there must have been a second break-in during the next day. An expert is lined up to testify how it is possible that a second break-in took place on the second day but since the only evidence that there was a subsequent break-in is a crackpot theory that has never passed scientific muster, the judge disallows the testimony.

 

[doolols]

It would not surprise me if all this noise that has appeared recently is an attempt to disrupt the process and add a degree of confusion.

Yep.

1. AC does not deny there was clen in his system.

2. He can't prove it came from contaminated beef.

No further questions. All this stuff about plasticizers and which day what shows up is nonsense. WADA / UCI don't have to prove that he transfused.