Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr.Maserati said:


So if AC is paying an expensive legal team, he thinks he can get off.

Well no - if AC does nothing he gets a 2 year holiday, so of course he is going to argue it. There is a lot at steak (pun intended)

There's no doubt that there is a chance, a slim chance, that there was some clenbuterol in the steak he ate. We had some percentages some time ago. No, it's not South America, where the chances are considerably higher, but clenbuterol has been measured in EU steak.

I think its something like 1 positive in the last few years in the EU.
Thats not slim - that is miniscule. Yes, AC will have a statistician there to suggest that its an incomplete study...yada, yada - but that will hardly satisfy the legal criteria of "balance of probabilities".

What the AC team are trying to show is that the doping couldn't happen, because the positive plasticizer and clen tests weren't synchronous, which is what you would normally expect. What they're trying to do is to shoot a hole in the UCI/WADA evidence, and therefore make the contamination the most likely, under the circumstances.

Again - no. I have explained this.
The UCI/WADA don't have to prove their case - AC has to establish his.
Forget the plasticizers. This is about the clen.

And don't forget that the UCI brought the case to CAS, since CA only did 6 months. So isn't it incumbent upon the UCI / WADA to show the reasons why the previous decision was wrong. Don't they have to shoot a hole in the contamination defence, and thereby show that doping was more likely?

Apologies for being dumb.

No - it is viewed as starting over again.
(Obviously only on the particular violation ie Clenbuterol positive 21 July)

 

[Merckx index]

Dr. Mas:

I think its something like 1 positive in the last few years in the EU.
Thats not slim - that is miniscule. Yes, AC will have a statistician there to suggest that its an incomplete study...yada, yada - but that will hardly satisfy the legal criteria of "balance of probabilities".

Exactly.

Again - no. I have explained this.
The UCI/WADA don't have to prove their case - AC has to establish his.
Forget the plasticizers. This is about the clen.

Unfortunately, it is about the DEHP, too. Ironically, the DEHP test, which at one time looked as if it could pound the final nail in Bert’s coffin if the results were real and could be used, may end up helping more than hurting Bert’s case. Bert does not have to prove that he ate contaminated meat. He has to prove that contaminated meat is more likely than any possible alternative. So in an important sense, WADA does have to prove their case; whether a doping case should work like this belongs to another discussion, but for better or worse, that is the way this case is being judged. And WADA has “steaked” its case on transfusion.

Thus, as discussed here before, WADA has to argue that there were two transfusions, not one, during the Tour, the first of red cells (putting the DEHP in Bert’s system), and the second of plasma (which would have contained most of the CB). To me this is plausible, and far more likely than contaminated meat. But I can certainly understand how some people would doubt that the sport’s most recognized star would really take the chance of performing not just one but two illegal procedures during the biggest race of the year—particularly when the second one, the alleged transfusion of plasma, would have been of minor PE effect, compared to the red cells (though as discussed here before, it would have diluted his blood, and helped keep his HT at legal or baseline levels). Even if Bert is found guilty, I think the DEHP/CB discrepancy has possibly given him a greater chance of getting off than if there had been no DEHP test at all.

Python:

at the time i speculated, that a base line of 16 to 16.5 g/l for haemoglobin can only be explained by: (i) consistent blood doping with top ups or (ii) blood uci dispensation/permit.

we never heard anything of bert having a permit yet it's a possibility and another challenge for cas to validate.

I hope, without a lot of expectations, that we get an answer to this very interesting question in the CAS report. It could provide support for a possibility I raised a year ago here, not much discussed here or considered very likely: that Bert is found guilty of not one but two violations, transfusion as well as CB. As GJB and others have pointed out, differing standards make it possible for him to be found guilty of CB on the basis of preponderance of evidence, while not guilty of transfusion on the basis of a level between preponderance and no reasonable doubt. I think the contaminated meat scenario is so remote, though, that any finding that he took CB by transfusion will imply that transfusion meets the standard for violation. IOW, stacked up against the statistics for contaminated Euro meat, transfusion approaches no reasonable doubt. But this would have such serious repercussions on Bert’s career that I’m sure CAS will go into contortions to avoid this conclusion. If he is found guilty of CB, I will be very interested to see how they rationalize not finding him guilty of transfusion as well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr. Mas:



Exactly.



Unfortunately, it is about the DEHP, too. Ironically, the DEHP test, which at one time looked as if it could pound the final nail in Bert’s coffin if the results were real and could be used, may end up helping more than hurting Bert’s case. Bert does not have to prove that he ate contaminated meat. He has to prove that contaminated meat is more likely than any possible alternative. So in an important sense, WADA does have to prove their case; whether a doping case should work like this belongs to another discussion, but for better or worse, that is the way this case is being judged. And WADA has “steaked” its case on transfusion.

Thus, as discussed here before, WADA has to argue that there were two transfusions, not one, during the Tour, the first of red cells (putting the DEHP in Bert’s system), and the second of plasma (which would have contained most of the CB). To me this is plausible, and far more likely than contaminated meat. But I can certainly understand how some people would doubt that the sport’s most recognized star would really take the chance of performing not just one but two illegal procedures during the biggest race of the year—particularly when the second one, the alleged transfusion of plasma, would have been of minor PE effect, compared to the red cells (though as discussed here before, it would have diluted his blood, and helped keep his HT at legal or baseline levels). Even if Bert is found guilty, I think the DEHP/CB discrepancy has possibly given him a greater chance of getting off than if there had been no DEHP test at all.

Python:



I hope, without a lot of expectations, that we get an answer to this very interesting question in the CAS report. It could provide support for a possibility I raised a year ago here, not much discussed here or considered very likely: that Bert is found guilty of not one but two violations, transfusion as well as CB. As GJB and others have pointed out, differing standards make it possible for him to be found guilty of CB on the basis of preponderance of evidence, while not guilty of transfusion on the basis of a level between preponderance and no reasonable doubt. I think the contaminated meat scenario is so remote, though, that any finding that he took CB by transfusion will imply that transfusion meets the standard for violation. IOW, stacked up against the statistics for contaminated Euro meat, transfusion approaches no reasonable doubt. But this would have such serious repercussions on Bert’s career that I’m sure CAS will go into contortions to avoid this conclusion. If he is found guilty of CB, I will be very interested to see how they rationalize not finding him guilty of transfusion as well.

Again, no - here is the rule in its entirety that this case will be decided on. (exceptions are if they find procedural errors etc)

Page 55 UCI Anti-doping rules

Chapter X SANCTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES
No Fault or Negligence
296. If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.
When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of a Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated.
In the event this article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under articles 306 to 312.

So, it is not a process of elimination - it is up to the athlete to "establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system".

 

[peterst6906]

So, it is not a process of elimination - it is up to the athlete to "establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system".

But hasn't Bert already done this to the satisfaction of the RFEC?

The case before CAS is not Bert appealing, it's the UCI and WADA. The burden of proof is on them at this point isn't it?, since the Spanish Federation already ruled that Bert was not at fault, hence the original sanction of 1-year recommended in Spain was lifted.

I'm not familiar with the case law and what exactly CAS is ruling on, so my understanding of what is being appealed by the UCI and WADA may be wrong and it's either:

1. UCI/WADA appealed against the RFEC decision and burden on them, or
2. RFEC decision set aside by the appeal and CAS examining original case, burden on Contador, or
3. something else

EDIT:

The CAS-TAS Statutes would seem to indicate the first situation applies:

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4962/5048/0/Code20201220_en_2001.01.12.pdf

Particularly procedural rules R47, R48, R51 and R55.

But then R57 provides the panel with fairly broad powers to make a completely new decision in the case.

So it looks like it's really option 3. Burden of proof on UCI/WADA, but the panel can examine all of the relevant law and make a new ruling.

 

[daveinzambia]

I think its something like 1 positive in the last few years in the EU.
Thats not slim - that is miniscule. Yes, AC will have a statistician there to suggest that its an incomplete study...yada, yada - but that will hardly satisfy the legal criteria of "balance of probabilities".

Isn't the argument they are using that the testing is woefully inadequate (of cows not riders) and therefore that 1 positive is not a fair representation of the overall picture. The level of testing means it is not really possible to say with any confidence that there was not Clen in the meat.

When you look at the circumstances, small chance of clen, rest day, no one else that ate it tested, plasticiers then it does not look good. But, as mentioned elsewhere, with the timings around the plasticier and Clen tests failing to fully back the transfusion argument all Contador's team need to do is show there is a chance that the meat could contain Clen.

 

[Merckx index]

So, it is not a process of elimination - it is up to the athlete to "establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system".

The key word here is “establish”. You seem to interpret it as “show directly”. But we all know that is impossible, since the meat can’t be traced. If establish were interpreted in this way, Bert would have been sanctioned a long time ago, case closed.

Since the meat is not traceable, the only way to “establish” contamination is through indirect means, and part of those means involve showing that contamination is more likely than any of the alternatives. In science this happens all the time. When a new theory is established, the older theories are very relevant. The new theory becomes established in large part not simply by showing that it’s consistent with certain evidence, but that it’s more consistent with that evidence than some other theory. In the same way, Bert aims to show that contamination is more consistent with the evidence than transfusion. This means that the evidence for transfusion, including DEHP, is highly relevant, and can’t be separated from the rest of the case.

Isn't the argument they are using that the testing is woefully inadequate (of cows not riders) and therefore that 1 positive is not a fair representation of the overall picture. The level of testing means it is not really possible to say with any confidence that there was not Clen in the meat.

This argument was debunked here a long time ago. It is the same logic that says that voter polls are inadequate, because they only ask 500-1000 people out of a population of tens of millions. Statistically it’s well established that such sampling techniques can be quite accurate if the sample is random. The % of the total population sampled is totally irrelevant; all that matters is the absolute size of the sample. Of course the sample does have to be random, but the people who set up meat tests are not total fools, they do understand statistics. If it could really be shown that the statistics are not an accurate indicator of the level of contamination in the Spanish meat supply, there would be a major scandal, dwarfing the little crises that occur whenever some food is pulled off the market after being traced to a wave people getting sick

 

[Papparrazzi]

Whats a done deal?

Or is it, if Contador gets off its because there was a guy from Israel on the panel and thats why.
Or, because Becca said something it exposes this deceit and now CAS have to find Contador guilty?

I like a good conspiracy - Beccas is not a good conspiracy.
There are 2 other members to the panel - one nominated by Contador the other by UCI & WADA and the CAS nominated the Chairman.

The first one.

 

[Papparrazzi]

So let me get this right. In your opinion you are having a relationship with the judge if u are in his country?? Thats a bit...hm.. farfetched in the lack of a better word. I guess Riss shouldnt go to Germany or Schwitzerland either to avoid getting accused of tryingto influence the judges

Yep, that's what I'm saying.
Has any other pro team ever had a training camp in Israel? Ever in the history of cycling?

 

[Cimber]

did anyone else test positive to clen (on his team who may have eaten this meat) or was it "special just for him meat brought all the way from another country" and no one else was allowed any of it?

Iirc (might be wrong though) none of the team mates who ate the meat were tested. To bad really as that would have made the case alot more simple (for either side depending if that other person was tested positive or not)

The first one.

Yep, that's what I'm saying.
Has any other pro team ever had a training camp in Israel? Ever in the history of cycling?

I think the u should dig into the Kennedy assassination and the lunar landing. I am sure u will have a field trip with finding some juicy conspiracy theories

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

So, it is not a process of elimination - it is up to the athlete to "establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system".

Can't agree with you on this interpretation Dr Mas. The athlete appears to be trying to establish how the clean entered his system by a process of elimination.

@python, your speculation that Ashenden might not have been allowed to speak if biopass data supporting the 2 part transfusion theory were unavailible sounds very plausible to me.

 

[sniper]

only now I understand that the Israeli guy is not just a member of the jury, he's the chairman, so it was probably him who decided to deny Ashenden in November.

Saxo-bank training camp in Israel really a coincidence?

 

[Cimber]

only now I understand that the Israeli guy is not just a member of the jury, he's the chairman, so it was probably him who decided to deny Ashenden in November.

Saxo-bank training camp in Israel really a coincidence?

oh come on. Give CAS a little more credit pretty please

 

[sniper]

oh come on. Give CAS a little more credit pretty please

CAS found the thought serious enough to come up with an official dementi.
The international press found it serious enough to write about it.

And do, by all means, explain to me the extreme confidence Saxo Bank and AC's people have in a positive outcome of the case. they seem to have no doubt whatsoever that he is going to get off. Saxo has planned everything around AC this season. Given the available evidence, that is risky at the very least, unless....indeed.

If they weren't a 100% sure of a positive outcome, AC and Saxo should be much more concerned, or at least reserved, about the possible outcome, and Saxo should not be planning their entire season on AC.

Apparently, they have good reasons to be so confident. And a solid body of evidence can surely not be that reason, since clearly AC has no such body of evidence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

<snipped for brevity>
The CAS-TAS Statutes would seem to indicate the first situation applies:

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4962/5048/0/Code20201220_en_2001.01.12.pdf

Particularly procedural rules R47, R48, R51 and R55.

But then R57 provides the panel with fairly broad powers to make a completely new decision in the case.

So it looks like it's really option 3. Burden of proof on UCI/WADA, but the panel can examine all of the relevant law and make a new ruling.

No - while you are correct to point out (Rule 57) "The panel have full power to review the facts and the law..." - the law in this instance is back to the UCI rules. In short the burden to suggest there was a positive test is on UCI (not in dispute) and then it is up to the athlete to establish how the product entered their system.

Isn't the argument they are using that the testing is woefully inadequate (of cows not riders) and therefore that 1 positive is not a fair representation of the overall picture. The level of testing means it is not really possible to say with any confidence that there was not Clen in the meat.

When you look at the circumstances, small chance of clen, rest day, no one else that ate it tested, plasticiers then it does not look good. But, as mentioned elsewhere, with the timings around the plasticier and Clen tests failing to fully back the transfusion argument all Contador's team need to do is show there is a chance that the meat could contain Clen.

Of course Contador will argue that there is not enough statistical analysis to rule out possible contamination.

But that is why you fall back on the rules - "a chance" does not satisfy that it has been establish to a higher standard than "balance of probabilities".

 

[Jamsque]

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).

Ain't no logic in it, it's sports.

And yes, I did predict Contador would win the Tour. And you know what? I'm super ****ing happy that I did, and that he didn't. I'd much rather expect the worst and enjoy being wrong than hope for the best and be disappointed.

 

[python]

@python, your speculation that Ashenden might not have been allowed to speak if biopass data supporting the 2 part transfusion theory were unavailible sounds very plausible to me.

ironically, and you seem to have caught up to my many times repeated point - take it for what it's worth but bert's salvation might be much more due to random factors (completely independent of him) and to a much lesser degree due to factors that posters have chosen beating to death (arbiter prejudice for ex).

do you recall, iwcij, our discussions here when the german ponger was acquitted ? that was the first ever complete clen exoneration. due to the significance of that event at the time, i was intentionally posing several questions here - i felt they should stimulate thinking, open some intrenched minds as to the mess surrounding clen regulation.

one of my strong points was that the german ponger got off (essentially against the uphill odds built into the current strict liability rules etc), that he got off b/c he was damn lucky. i recall you were one of only few who understood it. yes, you have to be lucky to:
(i) have 4 of your dinner team mates tested for clen
(ii) you have to be lucky to have those teamates tested by the hypersensitive (unaccredited) method. implication: any other method would miss their clen.
(iii) you have to be lucky to have the best german anti-doping minds (including the cologne lab director) taking personal charge in your defence
etc etc

by the same token, bert's luck seemed to have been in his favour but on the edge - around split 51/49.

he seemed to have been unlucky to have his dinner mates tested on the 21st...but that might have been compensated by unavailability of his blood tests on 20, 21, 22 july (or lack of clear picture)...you get my drift.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The key word here is “establish”. You seem to interpret it as “show directly”. But we all know that is impossible, since the meat can’t be traced. If establish were interpreted in this way, Bert would have been sanctioned a long time ago, case closed.

<snipped>

I interpret the word to the rules - establish means establish, but it is to what burden of proof, which falls back to "balance of probabilities".

Saying "it might have been the cow" does not satisfy that.

Can't agree with you on this interpretation Dr Mas. The athlete appears to be trying to establish how the clean entered his system by a process of elimination.

@python, your speculation that Ashenden might not have been allowed to speak if biopass data supporting the 2 part transfusion theory were unavailible sounds very plausible to me.

Yes & no. (and if I was AC I would attempt the same)

But - aside from the steak - AC is not trying to show how it could have entered his system, he is trying to show how it couldn't.
All WADA/UCI have to show is that those theories are not sound.

As an example - if yesterdays reports are accurate we see that WADA/UCI were not allowed have MA show how Clen could be because of transfusion.
Why?
It is up to AC to establish that the transfusion theory cannot be possible - which is why they were allowed to have Paul Scott and have him subject to cross examination. If WADA/UCI can rebuke his evidence/theory it is a no score draw.

 

[peterst6906]

No - while you are correct to point out (Rule 57) "The panel have full power to review the facts and the law..." - the law in this instance is back to the UCI rules.

Well, yes of course it is. As soon as rule 57 is applied, the law refers to the UCI rules and also any WADA rules that are relevant.

The earlier rules establish the requirement of the UCI and WADA to challenge the decision of the RFEC, but 57 lets the panel look broader then that and make their own ruling on the whole case. Clearly then, the law refers to the rules of the UCI and WADA if 57 is considered.

Additionally (although I don't think it applies in this case), where no relevant laws exist (ie. rules or laws), the Swiss laws apply (including the Swiss anti-doping rules) - but not necessarily relevant to the Contador case.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

CAS found the thought serious enough to come up with an official dementi.
The international press found it serious enough to write about it.

Do you believe everything you read in the press?
As we have seen from other doping stories there is a lot of muddying of the waters and an over eager media willing to be first with 'news'.

And do, by all means, explain to me the extreme confidence Saxo Bank and AC's people have in a positive outcome of the case. they seem to have no doubt whatsoever that he is going to get off. Saxo has planned everything around AC this season. Given the available evidence, that is risky at the very least, unless....indeed.

If they weren't a 100% sure of a positive outcome, AC and Saxo should be much more concerned, or at least reserved, about the possible outcome, and Saxo should not be planning their entire season on AC.

Saxo and Bjarne weren't so confident last year as they threw him in to the Giro as they were unsure of him being at the Tour.

Apparently, they have good reasons to be so confident. And a solid body of evidence can surely not be that reason, since clearly AC has no such body of evidence.

If AC gets off (even for a procedural error which as UCI were in charge of Results management is not entirely unlikely "Dear Alajandro Contador, you have failed a test. Uncle Pat.") - expect a gushing press release saying that the result is a "complete vindication" and shows that there was "no possibility of doping" etc
Sound-bytes rarely ever match the full story. (this goes for all sides)

 

[Señor_Contador]

Hate to change the subject here but... A cyclist friend of mine from Galicia had a chance to ride with a few guys from Pinto (and surroundings) last week (some sort of charity event) and... to make a long story short, Alberto's mighty smiley as of lately, going as far as throwing a confirmatory wink at them when asked if he thought he was going to get off.

I think he is going to walk.

 

[sniper]

Hate to change the subject here but... A cyclist friend of mine from Galicia had a chance to ride with a few guys from Pinto (and surroundings) last week (some sort of charity event) and... to make a long story short, Alberto's mighty smiley as of lately, going as far as throwing a confirmatory wink at them when asked if he thought he was going to get off.

I think he is going to walk.

You're not changing the subject.

You're confirming what I said above.

 

[BroDeal]

You're not changing the subject.

You're confirming what I said above.

I guess Contador left out the part about Riis bribing Da Joos with a training camp in Israel. Aside from that everything was confirmed.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Hate to change the subject here but... A cyclist friend of mine from Galicia had a chance to ride with a few guys from Pinto (and surroundings) last week (some sort of charity event) and... to make a long story short, Alberto's mighty smiley as of lately, going as far as throwing a confirmatory wink at them when asked if he thought he was going to get off.

I think he is going to walk.

Oh I hope you're right! *crosses fingers*

 

[LaFlorecita]

You're not changing the subject.

You're confirming what I said above.

He means that his post isn't about the judge and the bribary etc.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Btw, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Alberto has already heard what the outcome is. The panel has already made a decision, they just have yet to write it down.