Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Siriuscat]

Hopefully, you [his fans] will stay with us on this forum after the ban.

Will you leave when he's acquitted???

 

[python]

sniper, suspicions are justified but you stubbornly refuse a sanity check on your
position - it was posted multiple times - no arbitrator even the panel president can take a solitary position. it's always a vote when they decide.

it's rather obvious that in the case of not allowing ashenden, the panel vote was at least 2/1 and as i quoted one source likely 3/0.

yet you continue ignoring a simple common sense check. i know you're capable of a wider view.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Hopefully, you [his fans] will stay with us on this forum after the ban.

Firstly, of course I will;
Secondly, are you assuming I am his only fan on this forum?

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I could name a 100 countries that are in more need of financial support for a cycling school than Israel.

I'm just saying...

Do you discount the possibility that Riis is looking for an Israeli sponsor?

If so, why?

 

[sniper]

sniper, suspicions are justified but you stubbornly refuse a sanity check on your
position - it was posted multiple times - no arbitrator even the panel president can take a solitary position. it's always a vote when they decide.

it's rather obvious that in the case of not allowing ashenden, the panel vote was at least 2/1 and as i quoted one source likely 3/0.

yet you continue ignoring a simple comm non sense check. i know you're capable of a wider view.

I fully agree with the 2/1 or 3/0 thing. That's all clear.

But how stupid could SAXO be to raise suspicions upon them?

Why Israel? Why now? It's easily accounted for by assuming they were there to seal a deal. Why is that so far-fetched? Having Barak's vote would increase SAXO's winning chances by a considerable 33%.

If AC receives a ban (which I passionately hope he does), that'll prove me wrong for sure.

If he gets off, on the other hand, there'll be lots of talking about the trip to Israel. So if SAXO weren't there to seal a deal, then somebody should explain to me why they were there at all...

 

[GJB123]

You rightly gave out to sniper about preparing for a particular type of judgement - but you are guilty of the same if you believe that an elaborate theory was introduced by WADA.
If we know anything form previous cases is that a lot of misinformation comes out at key points and erroneous accounts are accepted as fact and continued in future newscycles.

Okay, I wil rephrase it. We hypothesized on information available in the public domain withoout knowing whether it is accurate or not (whicvh was acknowledged by most at that time). The information about the alleged WADA strategy might have have been leaked as spin or PR by the other side and that was also discussed, but at least the media reported it as coming from sources close to the proceedings.

For the bribery we have Becca's speculative comments and then ....... well basically a whole lot of nothing but more conjecture and speculation. So we are asked to speculate on speculation and not on information (although that information might also be incorrect, I will give you that).

I would presume Scott will argue that is impossible for a clenbuterol positive to come from a transfusion - and WADA/UCI will say that it is possible. Again WADA/UCI do not have to prove anything except that it is a possibility.

In theory you are correct, in practice you are not. Rule one for a legal proceedings is to keep your mouth shut if you are not sure that your theory is correct or if you do not know the answer yourself to a question you are asking. By allegedly coming up with a detailed transfusion theory and then possibly not being able to back it up with hard facts and numbers will harm your strategy no end. Therefore my point is that WADA would have been better off just crunching AC's theories and strategy without providing a detailed counter theory, expacially because they do not have to prove anything.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

And Python, Doc, and GJB,

Please account for this:

Los abogados de la AMA empezaron a dudar de Barak, un jurista nacido en Argentina, cuando supieron que apenas una semana antes de la vista de Lausana había sido invitado por el Consejo Superior de Deportes (CSD) a dar una conferencia en Madrid en un seminario antidopaje en el que también participó Gorka Villar, abogado de Contador, hijo del presidente de la Federación Española de Fútbol y, esto lo investigaron posteriormente, que también había tenido antes relación profesional con Barak.

Ah, and don't forget to answer the questions I've posed a couple of times already:
Most importantly: 1. Why israel (why not, say, Egypt?), 2. Why now (Why not wait, it would have saved them lots of criticism).
(And less importantly: 3. Why was Ashenden denied testimony? 4. Why did WADA personell call the trial a "farce"?)

I remain stubborn:
Assuming a direct link between AC's CLEN case and SAXO's trip to Israel provides a direct and plausible answer to these questions, that you guys seem unable to answer.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I apologize in advance for this - but I couldn't resist.......

Here is the (terrible) inspiration for this....

 

[GJB123]

I fully agree with the 2/1 or 3/0 thing. That's all clear.

But how stupid could SAXO be to raise suspicions upon them?

Why Israel? Why now? It's easily accounted for by assuming they were there to seal a deal. Why is that so far-fetched? Having Barak's vote would increase SAXO's winning chances by a considerable 33%.

If AC receives a ban (which I passionately hope he does), that'll prove me wrong for sure.

If he gets off, on the other hand, there'll be lots of talking about the trip to Israel. So if SAXO weren't there to seal a deal, then somebody should explain to me why they were there at all...

Having you been paying attention at all? Perhaps because it is a relatively well structured country with nice roads, nice accomodation and nice weather. Perhaps because they were seeking sponsorship from Israel and being first at bat might just help (as would hiring an Israeli cycling talent).

It is not as if Riis hasn't taken an unusual approach to training camos before, like arctic survival trips and the like. Just perhaps he is bettter equipped than most very conservative DS's to think out of the box when it comes to team building etc.

Occam's razor to the rescue. Why would he actually risk getting called on his bribe if that bribe only buys him 1/3 of the votes on the panel. If you are taking a risk of bribing anyone, wouldn't you better go the whole hog (pun intended) and bribe al three presiding judges? Better to be safe than sorry.

But since you're Dutch, I leave you to ponder an old Dutch saying: "Zo de waard is, vertouwt hij zijn gasten. "

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

Having you been paying attention at all? Perhaps because it is a relatively well structured country with nice roads, nice accomodation and nice weather. Perhaps because they were seeking sponsorship from Israel and being first at bat might just help (as would hiring an Israeli cycling talent).

It is not as if Riis hasn't taken an unusual approach to training camos before, like arctic survival trips and the like. Just perhaps he is bettter equipped than most veruy conservatoive DS's to think out of the box when it comes to team building etc.

Occam's razor to the rescue. Why would he actually risk getting called on his bribe if that bribe only buys him 1/3 of the votes on the panel. If you are taking a risk of bribing anyone, wouldn't you better go the whole hog (pun intended) and bribe al three presiding judges? Better to be safe than sorry.

But since you're Dutch, I leave you to ponder an old Dutch saying: "Zo de waard is, vertouwt hij zijn gasten. "

Regards
GJ

As I said, if AC gets off, there'll be lots of talking about the Israel-connection, so Riis was stupid to go there.
Well, unless he was there to seal a deal.

How stubborn you want me to be if you come up with a much more far-fetched alternative about good roads and Israeli cycling talent?

There are good roads and cycling talent in a 100 different countries whose cycling officials are not on board of the CAS commitee and do not have direct contacts with AC's lawyers. Again, it would have saved Riis a lot of unnecessary criticism.

And I'm not speaking for the other judges.
But clearly, better to have the committee's chairman voting for you than nobody at all.

 

[GJB123]

And Python, Doc, and GJB,

Please account for this:



Ah, and don't forget to answer the questions I've posed a couple of times already:
Most importantly: 1. Why israel (why not, say, Egypt?), 2. Why now (Why not wait, it would have saved them lots of criticism).
(And less importantly: 3. Why was Ashenden denied testimony? 4. Why did WADA personell call the trial a "farce"?)

I remain stubborn:
Assuming a direct link between AC's CLEN case and SAXO's trip to Israel provides a direct and plausible answer to these questions, that you guys seem unable to answer.

1. Egypt? Really? Have you been living under a rock the last year. I was talking of a good infrastructure. Do you really think Egypt was a good and safe place to go training in any year, but espacially last year? You must be kidding!
2. If you are looking for sponsors for example, you cannot be picky about timing. Should he also have stayed away from Switzerland and Germany?
3. This was explained to death by Publicus. If you refuse to read or accept what he stated, then any discusion is useless.
4. Perhaps because they are losing and are sour losers. Read python's post for a reason if you cannot think of one yourself.

Regards
GJ

 

[Cloxxki]

I could name a 100 countries that are in more need of financial support for a cycling school than Israel.

I'm just saying...

Indeed, and 200 would be the figure I'd use. What makes IL a likely benificiary for any charity, sports or otherwise?
An exception would be when it would concern Palestinian riders, but that doesn't seem the case?

 

[GJB123]

How stubborn you want me to be if you come up with a much more far-fetched alternative about good roads and Israeli cycling talent?

You are rambling now. Please stop digging yourself in an ever deepening hole. It's becoming embarassing now.

What I said is that he might have already hired an Israeli talent to sway sponsors as he did with hiring a Japanese cyclist. Israel is unchartered territory for cycling with a lot of very rich companies especially in the tech sector where Riis is used to shopping around for sponsors. That is a far more likely explanation than you hate driven drivvel.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

1. Egypt? Really? Have you been living under a rock the last year. I was talking of a good infrastructure. Do you really think Egypt was a good and safe place to go training in any year, but espacially last year? You must be kidding!
2. If you are looking for sponsors for example, you cannot be picky about timing. Should he also have stayed away from Switzerland and Germany?
3. This was explained to death by Publicus. If you refuse to read or accept what he stated, then any discusion is useless.
4. Perhaps because they are losing and are sour losers. Read python's post for a reason if you cannot think of one yourself.

Regards
GJ

What do I know about egypt. I'm just saying it needn't be israel. (see Cloxxi'S post above)

By the way, you need 4 different unrelated arguments to address 4 questions. I need only one argument to address all 4.
Guess my argument wins.

Also, you're not addressing the (direct and indirect) relatioships between Barak and AC's lawyer.

 

[GJB123]

Indeed, and 200 would be the figure I'd use. What makes IL a likely benificiary for any charity, sports or otherwise?
An exception would be when it would concern Palestinian riders, but that doesn't seem the case?

Go right ahead. 200 you have said, right? Given that there are 193 member states in the United Nations I think you would be hard pushed given the fact that includes countries like North-Korea, Congo, Sudan, Libya, Jemen, etc. Good luck!!!

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

What do I know about egypt. I'm just saying it needn't be israel. (see Cloxxi'S post above)

By the way, you need 4 different unrelated arguments to address 4 questions. I need only one argument to address all 4.
Guess my argument wins.

Also, you're not addressing the (direct and indirect) relatioships between Barak and AC's lawyer.

Flip a few pages on the link between all lawyers involved (also the ones from WADA and UCI) and then come and explain again that one link is worse than the other. You grasping for straws, mate.

Oh BTW, have you managed to read up on Publicus's thorough explanation of the possible reasoning behind Ashenden's exclusion. Guess you haven't if you still yhink you can win this discussion by repeating the same fairy tale over and over (to call it an real argument would be flattering it).

EDIT: and the fact that you know zilch about Egypt and hwat happened there last year (and this year for that matter) shows that you are in no position to criticize any DS's choice for whatever training camp location they choose.

Regards
GJ

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Okay, I wil rephrase it. We hypothesized on information available in the public domain withoout knowing whether it is accurate or not (whicvh was acknowledged by most at that time). The information about the alleged WADA strategy might have have been leaked as spin or PR by the other side and that was also discussed, but at least the media reported it as coming from sources close to the proceedings.

For the bribery we have Becca's speculative comments and then ....... well basically a whole lot of nothing but more conjecture and speculation. So we are asked to speculate on speculation and not on information (although that information might also be incorrect, I will give you that).

I don't give any credence to Beccas comments - there is simply nothing more at the moment that Saxo going to Israel was nothing more than coincidence.

For Snipers benefit - this case was due to be heard as early as last June (iirc) long before any team camp would have been considered.

In theory you are correct, in practice you are not. Rule one for a legal proceedings is to keep your mouth shut if you are not sure that your theory is correct or if you do not know the answer yourself to a question you are asking. By allegedly coming up with a detailed transfusion theory and then possibly not being able to back it up with hard facts and numbers will harm your strategy no end. Therefore my point is that WADA would have been better off just crunching AC's theories and strategy without providing a detailed counter theory, expacially because they do not have to prove anything.

Regards
GJ

But thats what I said - I don't believe in this comment that WADA or Ashenden were going to come up with some double transfusion theory.

It does not make sense that WADA are upset about not having Ashenden present a case for DEHP (its not a validated test), but it would make sense if he was not allowed to bring up prior Bio Passport data to show variations in profile, as this has been ruled by CAS as an accepted test.
If that theory is correct, I could understand why WADA might feel frustrated, but I also see why CAS may have refused to allow it.

 

[Amsterhammer]

My sincere apologies for this brief off-topic intrusion, but could I just particularly ask the Dutch posters (all others too, of course) here to show some solidarity next Monday?

b.v.d.

 

[sniper]

Flip a few pages on the link between all lawyers involved (also the ones from WADA and UCI) and then come and explain again that one link is worse than the other. You grasping for straws, mate.

Regards
GJ

A couple of months back, when I was busy defending the view that WADA might actually go for the plasticizer-argument, I was supposedly also grasping at straws.

Now, in this case, I'm not claiming that there is link between SAXO in Israel and AC's CLEN case. I'm merely saying that it is a good posibility (rather than a far-fetched conspiracy theory) that there is such a link. All the more given the fact that such a link accounts directly for certain observed facts and oddities.

 

[GJB123]

A couple of months back, when I was busy defending the view that WADA might actually go for the plasticizer-argument, I was supposedly also grasping at straws.

Now, in this case, I'm not claiming that there is link between SAXO in Israel and AC's CLEN case. I'm merely saying that it is a good posibility (rather than a far-fetched conspiracy theory) that there is such a link. All the more given the fact that such a link accounts directly for certain observed facts and oddities.

Only in your mind. Most sensible people accept the more rational explanations that actually carry some weight.

And as for the plasticizer argument. At least my point and for most others was that the plasticizer test was not brought up in the initial hearings nor was there any evidence it actually existed.

As it stands bringing it up might have hurt WADA more than AC.

Regards
GJ

 

[Publicus]

Indeed, and 200 would be the figure I'd use. What makes IL a likely benificiary for any charity, sports or otherwise?
An exception would be when it would concern Palestinian riders, but that doesn't seem the case?

That is actually the case:

Cycling for Peace” will be part of the Peres Center for Peace, and will integrate both Jewish and Muslim youngsters in its programme. It is located in Acre, in northern Israel.

EDIT: more excerpts for those not clicking through:

This will be the first school of its kind in the country, said Tami Hay, director of the sports department of Peres Center for Peace. “In Acre there are two communities - a Jewish and a Muslim and the city suffers from vast segregation in terms of different schools and separate leisure activities. But this Friday one class from each school will mix as one to join a cycling program and we're then using sport as a tool to integrate.”

From this story: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/saxo-bank-team-members-building-a-school-in-israel

There is simply nothing here to support a conspiracy of the magnitude that sniper is alleging, but it does make for entertaining reading.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And Python, Doc, and GJB,

Please account for this:



Ah, and don't forget to answer the questions I've posed a couple of times already:
Most importantly: 1. Why israel (why not, say, Egypt?), 2. Why now (Why not wait, it would have saved them lots of criticism).
(And less importantly: 3. Why was Ashenden denied testimony? 4. Why did WADA personell call the trial a "farce"?)

I remain stubborn:
Assuming a direct link between AC's CLEN case and SAXO's trip to Israel provides a direct and plausible answer to these questions, that you guys seem unable to answer.

To address your questions.

1. Why israel (why not, say, Egypt?),
Firstly, why not Israel?
Saxo have always had a pre-season camp with special emphasis on team bonding - Israel is still in conflict so building a cycling school for all sides is novel and worthy project that both bonds and promotes the team.

2. Why now (Why not wait, it would have saved them lots of criticism).
Not much point in having a pre-season get together in late January.

3. Why was Ashenden denied testimony?
I explained it before - but if he was I believe it would relate to the BP and earlier data.
As WADA do not have to prove their case then if that testimony was not judged relevant I can see why it got culled.

4. Why did WADA personell call the trial a "farce"?
I am sure that the case is viewed as a farce - the process has been dragged out and there were 23 'experts' proposed to be called - usually an effort to strangle the case with either irrelevant scientific or legal argument.

In a later post you bring up that Barak is friendly with an AC lawyer - (lets be fair, who else would befriend a lawyer except other lawyers) - these guys are experts in international law, thats why they are picked, by CAS and indeed the defence.

In short none of this would suggest that Barak view was or indeed could be swayed.

 

[GJB123]

To address your questions.

1. Why israel (why not, say, Egypt?),
Firstly, why not Israel?
Saxo have always had a pre-season camp with special emphasis on team bonding - Israel is still in conflict so building a cycling school for all sides is novel and worthy project that both bonds and promotes the team.

2. Why now (Why not wait, it would have saved them lots of criticism).
Not much point in having a pre-season get together in late January.

3. Why was Ashenden denied testimony?
I explained it before - but if he was I believe it would relate to the BP and earlier data.
As WADA do not have to prove their case then if that testimony was not judged relevant I can see why it got culled.

4. Why did WADA personell call the trial a "farce"?
I am sure that the case is viewed as a farce - the process has been dragged out and there were 23 'experts' proposed to be called - usually an effort to strangle the case with either irrelevant scientific or legal argument.

In a later post you bring up that Barak is friendly with an AC lawyer - (lets be fair, who else would befriend a lawyer except other lawyers) - these guys are experts in international law, thats why they are picked, by CAS and indeed the defence.

In short none of this would suggest that Barak view was or indeed could be swayed.

Oh dear using 4 arguments instead of one argument/fairy tale to answer all 4 queries. Sorry Doc, you lost.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

To address your questions.

1. Why israel (why not, say, Egypt?),
Firstly, why not Israel?
Saxo have always had a pre-season camp with special emphasis on team bonding - Israel is still in conflict so building a cycling school for all sides is novel and worthy project that both bonds and promotes the team.

2. Why now (Why not wait, it would have saved them lots of criticism).
Not much point in having a pre-season get together in late January.

3. Why was Ashenden denied testimony?
I explained it before - but if he was I believe it would relate to the BP and earlier data.
As WADA do not have to prove their case then if that testimony was not judged relevant I can see why it got culled.

4. Why did WADA personell call the trial a "farce"?
I am sure that the case is viewed as a farce - the process has been dragged out and there were 23 'experts' proposed to be called - usually an effort to strangle the case with either irrelevant scientific or legal argument.

In a later post you bring up that Barak is friendly with an AC lawyer - (lets be fair, who else would befriend a lawyer except other lawyers) - these guys are experts in international law, thats why they are picked, by CAS and indeed the defence.

In short none of this would suggest that Barak view was or indeed could be swayed.

I except the answers to 3 and 4, which I had labled "less important".

I still don't see 1. why Israel?
You counter with "Why not Israel", but I've answered that already: because of the negative publicity it was inevitably going to create.
(Note also that it was a surprise to everybody, not just me, hearing that SAXO was going to Israel).

and 2. if so eager to go to Israel, why not next year? Clearly, not casting unnecessary doubt on AC's trial should be more important to Riis than winning sponsors in Israel.

 

[L'arriviste]

There are good roads and cycling talent in a 100 different countries whose cycling officials are not on board of the CAS commitee and do not have direct contacts with AC's lawyers. Again, it would have saved Riis a lot of unnecessary criticism.

And I'm not speaking for the other judges.
But clearly, better to have the committee's chairman voting for you than nobody at all.

Becca's yapping prompted me to examine a very few CAS officials and their backgrounds this week. What I found was a very small, interconnected club of people. This did not suggest corruption but it still seemed unwholesome.

I had somehow allowed myself to imagine an inalienable entity, an organisation which somehow came to be as a natural corollary of democracy and constitutions and government bodies and all that fibrous stuff of civil society. In short, like a court of justice.

But the plain fact is that CAS was established by a small grouping of interested parties and is run as a small grouping of interested parties. CAS is not a public institution and has no public obligations. It owes us nothing and as such those with the qualifications will be chosen by their qualified peers. It is a small club of qualified people.

It is this antithesis that I found hardest to accept, not any denial of foulplay. It prompted me to reflect on the nature of the public's stakeholding in sport today. We feed it and we watch it grow but ultimately it will decide things for itself.