Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Benotti69]

So, why do you tell me to "get over it, he's a doper, a cheat and a fraud." That seems like stating the facts to me.

Get over it, he beat the other dopers, Schlecks (clients of Fuentes).

Look at TdF 2007, 3 discovery rider's in the top 10 and Contador Discovery's TDF 2007 winner.

As to the DS's, what would you do if you're offered a place on the team of the best DS in the world (JB)?

I think JB is the best briber and had the best blood doctor Ferarri. If those 2 qualifications make him the best DS well he wins by a mile. But that aint anything to be proud of.

And he didn't say yes to Saiz in the first place, he chose to join Saiz' youth squad himself. And with that, how should he have known Saiz was such a fraud, while he was just 19 years old. I think anyone would've said yes immediately whenever they're asked if they want to join a pro team.

Yep and when the dope came out he put up his hands and said no thanks Signor Saiz, "i have the legs, lungs and head to win, i need no dope" and off he goes winning easy peasy beating all the dopers, just like Armstrong.

As i said get over it, he may not have tested positive( till the clen) but then neither did Armstrong as soon as he got his backdated TUE and then the rest is history (about to be rewrittten of course)....

 

[Nilsson]

So far Contador has merely established that someone bought a nice juicy Spanish steak.

How can one judge that a steak bought in the EU, in a country with no clenbuterol positives, with its own testing system and tracking system, satisfy that the steak bought had in the "balance of probabilities" been treated with clenbuterol?

Ik think that could be enough. He has a receipt, testimonials, etc. He can try to back that up with arguments:

- there are clen positives in Europe...

WADA argues the possibility of a cow in Castilla y León being fattened with clenbuterol is 0.0065 percent. Although the steak was bought in Irún, in the Basque Country, the AMA report refers to Castilla y León because its investigations establish the cow was reared in Pedraza de Alba (Salamanca) and slaughtered in Fuentesaúco (Zamora). The WADA also stated that 143 cases of illegal fattening with clenbuterol were detected from 1999 to 2002, and just four from 2003 to 2009.

- the questionability of the testing system in Europe. Firstly there is a threshold for cattle where there is non for athletes. Secondly the very small and widely spread (and therefore very volatile) testing pool.

According to Bird, and based on EU and Spanish regional data, only 900 of every one million cattle are tested before sale in Europe. Therefore, it can be affirmed that 99 percent of beef consumed in Spain has not been through any checks.

- there have been arrests in the 'meat industry' in Spain, almost every year, which doesn't match with the cattle data (probably because of the minimal testing). In 2010 on Tenerife, last year in Castilla y Leon. http://www.lacronicadeleon.es/2011/...omisada-que-se-eleva-a-16500-kilos-112227.htm

- The butcher's supplier allegedly had problems with his registration. He couldn't point out where the meat was from exactly, although (as earlier stated) Castilla y Leon (Salamanca) was the most likely origin of the meat...

- The brother of that Salamancan farmer already had already previously been implicated in a case of illegal fattening with clenbuterol.

That's (what we know) more or less backing up his own theory.

If he is also able to downplay the other possibility (assuming transfusion is the only competition, given that both parties have agreed micro dosing clen and contaminated food supplements are not likely) he may have a shot at balancing right...

- Ashenden couldn't testify...
- DEHP (therefore/ironically enough) seems to be on his hand.
- DEHP test isn't validated..
- Passport doesn't seem to exceed any limits...
- Transfusion as such doesn't rule out contaminated meat. It implies earlier use of clenbuterol, of which (strange enough, with the famous three weaks at 200 mcg a day - a probably too detailed WADA calculation - for a rider who in first half of 2010 was tested over thirty times...

N.B. I don't pretend to be conclusive (n)or accurate.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Get over it, he beat the other dopers, Schlecks (clients of Fuentes).

Look at TdF 2007, 3 discovery rider's in the top 10 and Contador Discovery's TDF 2007 winner.

I think JB is the best briber and had the best blood doctor Ferarri. If those 2 qualifications make him the best DS well he wins by a mile. But that aint anything to be proud of.

Yep and when the dope came out he put up his hands and said no thanks Signor Saiz, "i have the legs, lungs and head to win, i need no dope" and off he goes winning easy peasy beating all the dopers, just like Armstrong.

As i said get over it, he may not have tested positive( till the clen) but then neither did Armstrong as soon as he got his backdated TUE and then the rest is history (about to be rewrittten of course)....

Whatever... I'll just stop arguing.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

One big point here.
What is "exact same fashion"? Are you assuming the steak story is true? That AC could not have doped?

If AC did get contaminated by a steak than it can (and has) be traced, and all the relevant details regarding testing and the probability of it being contaminated can be established- there is nothing to suggest that his steak had clenbuterol.

One of Contadors tests was for as little as 7pg/ml - and that Cologne lab alone did over 13,000 tests last year.
While obviously all are not for Clen - any chance that a trace level exists would have been apparent.

I am asking if YOU were innocent of doping and you tested positive, same as Contador, how would you go about showing that your positive test came from a steak that was already eaten?

How many of those tests that Cologne did were for clen using the same level of precision? I would think that, if one were to claim that there are no indications of clenbuterol positives, that statistic would be required.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ik think that could be enough. He has a receipt, testimonials, etc. He can try to back that up with arguments:

All that shows is someone bought a steak.

- there are clen positives in Europe...



- the questionability of the testing system in Europe. Firstly there is a threshold for cattle where there is non for athletes. Secondly the very small and widely spread (and therefore very volatile) testing pool.



- there have been arrests in the 'meat industry' in Spain, almost every year, which doesn't match with the cattle data (probably because of the minimal testing). In 2010 on Tenerife, last year in Castilla y Leon. http://www.lacronicadeleon.es/2011/...omisada-que-se-eleva-a-16500-kilos-112227.htm

- The butcher's supplier allegedly had problems with his registration. He couldn't point out where the meat was from exactly, although (as earlier stated) Castilla y Leon (Salamanca) was the most likely origin of the meat...

- The brother of that Salamancan farmer already had already previously been implicated in a case of illegal fattening with clenbuterol.

That's (what we know) more or less backing up his own theory.

Again -that actually goes to show how unlikely it is that he did not eat contaminated meat and certainly does not satisfy the standard of "balance of probabilities".

If he is also able to downplay the other possibility (assuming transfusion is the only competition, given that both parties have agreed micro dosing clen and contaminated food supplements are not likely) he may have a shot at balancing right...

- Ashenden couldn't testify...
- DEHP (therefore/ironically enough) seems to be on his hand.
- DEHP test isn't validated..
- Passport doesn't seem to exceed any limits...
- Transfusion as such doesn't rule out contaminated meat. It implies earlier use of clenbuterol, of which (strange enough, with the famous three weaks at 200 mcg a day - a probably too detailed WADA calculation - for a rider who in first half of 2010 was tested over thirty times...

N.B. I don't pretend to be conclusive (n)or accurate.

Forget Ashenden, DEHP and all that. WADA do not have to prove their case.
Which is why I suspect Ashenden was not heard - WADA only have to rebut Scotts testimony that it is not possible to get positive for Clen from a transfusion.

 

[ferryman]

Get over it, he beat the other dopers, Schlecks (clients of Fuentes).

Schlecks plural. Objection M'Lord, inference A better example would have been Evans (client of Ferrari)

 

[python]

You are certainly free to point out whatever you like - but that you continually ignore the laws which will ultimately decide this case to further some one step, 2 step, 17 transfusion theory which was ruled irrelevant.

this comment alone points to how much you assume yet how little you actually understand the case. repeating what i said about a transfusion to attempt to score internet points indicates your technical incompetence. that simple.

It is AC who has to establish how the clenbuterol got in his system, not WADA.

at this point, you said it too many times to confirm what i said above. you have little clue of the big picture.

 

[airstream]

Does anyone else besides Merckx Index and Python have unbiased viewpoint?
Very interesting why CAS took 2 week break, considering nothing can affect on the result. Possibly, they want a public responce regarding Ashenden's removal to go down. On the other hand, remembering how RFEC initially proposed 1 year ban, but the day after cancelled its decision, I don't think any of these organization are somehow afraid of criticism somehow.

sorry, I write terribly, but understand 99%)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am asking if YOU were innocent of doping and you tested positive, same as Contador, how would you go about showing that your positive test came from a steak that was already eaten?

Ok - you are assuming Contador is innocent.
CAS do not operate under that standard, they have an AAF for clenbuterol - their only question is how did it get there? And one of those possibilities is that it was through abuse.

How many of those tests that Cologne did were for clen using the same level of precision? I would think that, if one were to claim that there are no indications of clenbuterol positives, that statistic would be required.

If it were part of my thesis - then yes.

Instead I used some logic - there were 13,454 tests in Cologne in 2010.
Even if only 10% were tested for clenbuterol and because it is part of the normal population then and Cologne can detect such minute levels then there should have been a surge in positives - unless you think they have a special machine that they only used for Contador?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

this comment alone points to how much you assume yet how little you actually understand the case. repeating what i said about a transfusion to attempt to score internet points indicates your technical incompetence. that simple.

at this point, you said it too many times to confirm what i said above. you have little clue of the big picture.

This post alone points to how you continue to reply to me - you provide nothing to show the "big picture".

If I was so clueless you would quickly point out this "technical incompetence" (and win the internets) instead of suggesting some expertise.

Instead we get the DHEP/ transfusion Ashenden stuff. Not only do I think it is irrelevant, so did CAS.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Ok - you are assuming Contador is innocent.
CAS do not operate under that standard, they have an AAF for clenbuterol - their only question is how did it get there? And one of those possibilities is that it was through abuse.

I am asking you a very simple question. I am not assuming Contador is innocent or guilty. I am simply asking you what you would do if you knew you were innocent and your case were similar to Contador's with respect to the other details (e.g., you ate steak, tested at the same level, etc.). For all intents and purposes, assume Contador never existed.

Given that, how would you go about making your case that you are innocent?

 

[python]

Instead we get the DHEP/ transfusion Ashenden stuff. Not only do I think it is irrelevant, so did CAS.

again, doc, sorry to bust your bubble so publicly, you're utterly clueless.

you started by misrepresenting/misreading/misquoting my post about the potential impacts of the latest delay and you end now by parroting me about issues i never questions regarding cas's positions. you are now looking pathetic to me.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

How can one judge that a steak bought in the EU, in a country with no clenbuterol positives, with its own testing system and tracking system, satisfy that the steak bought had in the "balance of probabilities" been treated with clenbuterol?

No positives?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...nbuterol-ring-used-in-horses-livestock_147239

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am asking you a very simple question. I am not assuming Contador is innocent or guilty. I am simply asking you what you would do if you knew you were innocent and your case were similar to Contador's with respect to the other details (e.g., you ate steak, tested at the same level, etc.). For all intents and purposes, assume Contador never existed.

Given that, how would you go about making your case that you are innocent?

I would do exactly as Contador has done - hire a superteam of lawyers and blame it on the steak. But, I would do that if I was innocent or guilty.

If Contador did indeed eat a steak contaminated with clenbuterol then I would be confident that a breach in the EU regulations can be highlighted.
That would "establish" and satisfy the "balance of probabilities" - so far (RFEC decision, EU stats, media etc) we have not seen anything to support his claim.

 

[python]

If Contador did indeed eat a steak contaminated with clenbuterol then I would be confident that a breach in the EU regulations can be highlighted.

another comment indicating how little of the big picture of the case you understand yet repeating irrelevant references.

a breach of eu regulations is the job of the police. contador's job is to provide credible evidence of the source of clen in his system. doc. you failed now saying things you yourself fatigued everyone repeating

 

[Dr. Maserati]

again, doc, sorry to bust your bubble so publicly, you're utterly clueless.

you started by misrepresenting/misreading/misquoting my post about the potential impacts of the latest delay and you end now by parroting me about issues i never questions regarding cas's positions. you are now looking pathetic to me.

You keep calling me "pathetic" and "clueless".

I am amazed that someone like yourself could just not show up these clueless/pathetic points instead of engaging in ad-honimens.

Your opening line - explains your intent, which I pointed out exactly why CAS delayed the case
(and then you go back to repeating existing views)

so, to further develop my earlier deduction in this post that the delay was likely a procedural interruption caused by cas' review of barring ashenden’s testimony…how likely was it to influence the outcome ?

It can be looked at from on a number of different angles each of which may or may not apply…

Evidentiary angle.
since the hearing ended and assuming ashenden was indeed excluded, there shouldn’t have been anything new (in terms of admissible evidence) added to the ‘pile’ for the 3 arbiters to base their decision on between the end of november and yesterday. as i speculated earlier, if the result of wada complaint was allowing wada to submit additional written arguments, the nature of the supplemented arguments may only be an expansion on those ashen den was denied in the first place. that is - wada may have received an opportunity to boost the likelihood of a 2-step transfusion theory. Frankly, I can’t see anything of sort… like the additional tests (they can’t be turned around in 2 weeks) or some new technical interpretations (they would require the other side be given the right to respond) and would take longer that 2 weeks. having in mind this type of considerations, i lean to the opinion there was NO new evidence added as a result of the latest delay. it was all likely about legal procedural motions and responses. you want odds dr mass ? let’s put it at 60/40. so this round favours bert

Psychological angle.
Not being an expert in the field, I can’t give it a due review. But if I was a member of the panel - much less it’s chairman - I’d very much be paying attention to the complaint. I would look thrice and weigh each of my past and future decisions. Can it result in altering some previous interpretations (before the complaint) ? I think so. Particularly now, when the arbiters have to commit their verbal consultations to writing and thus enter legal history. which leads me to the last angle…

Legal significance of a precedent.
again not being an expert, i can only use my knowledge and experience gained from similar cases. there is one big legal issues on the table - strict liability. clen threshold was mentioned earlier too, and the panel’s verdict may indeed affect it’s regulation down the road, but its significance imo isn’t comparable to contador’s verdict impact on strict liability. where will this chip fall ? hard to say but it’s clear that the panelists well realise they will create a significant legal precedent if they completely exonerate contador.

i’m going to take a risk here and say something i haven’t said before - if the panel rejected wada theory of a blood transfusion - which increasingly looks like they did - contador’s case (in terms of legal logic) becomes equivalent to rfec's hearing or the german ponger’s case. we all remember that was another precedent (1st full clen exoneration) except in that case the evidence of contamination was almost obvious and much stronger than in bert’s case. still wada refused to budge and dragged that poor german into cas to only yield in the last minute. (I described those circumstances in other threads).

such is the strength of wada commitment to the principle of strict liability ! cas knows it and cares about it but if contador’s exonerated it may force wada into reshaping the principle - as wada should.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

another comment indicating how little of the big picture of the case you understand yet repeating irrelevant references.

a breach of eu regulations is the job of the police. contador's job is to provide credible evidence of the source of clen in his system. doc. you failed now saying things you yourself fatigued everyone repeating

While I agree that my choice of the term EU regulations was poor - what I meant was if AC can show a breakdown in procedure. (Tracking, documentation etc)

However - your big picture view misses that if indeed enforcing EU regulation is not the sole job of the Police.

 

[python]

You keep calling me "pathetic" and "clueless".

I am amazed that someone like yourself could just not show up these clueless/pathetic points instead of engaging in ad-honimens.

Your opening line - explains your intent, which I pointed out exactly wht CAS delayed the case
(and then you go back to repeating existing views)

these were simple open-minded points attempting to interpret the events as they developed following the delay. that you failed to understand them, doc, and instead engaged in irrelevant arguments you seem to seek for some reason is not my problem.

yes, i will call your tactic the way i see it. count on it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No positives?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...nbuterol-ring-used-in-horses-livestock_147239

What - Contador ate a racehorse?

 

[python]

While I agree that my choice of the term EU regulations was poor - what I meant was if AC can show a breakdown in procedure. (Tracking, documentation etc)

However - your big picture view misses that if indeed enforcing EU regulation is not the sole job of the Police.

for someone castigating so many posters for 'inaccuracies' and taking pride in own pedantry the only way i can see those mistakes is an attempt at deflection and being caught red handed.

you lost again.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

these were simple open-minded points attempting to interpret the events as they developed following the delay. that you failed to understand them, doc, and instead engaged in irrelevant arguments you seem to seek for some reason is not my problem.

yes, i will call your tactic the way i see it. count on it.

Your opening line said:
so, to further develop my earlier deduction in this post that the delay was likely a procedural interruption caused by cas' review of barring ashenden’s testimony…how likely was it to influence the outcome ?


There was no suggestion that any delay is because of Ashenden not being allowed testify - (I even linked the CAS explanation) you introduced an irrelevant point, don't get upset at me that CAS made all that hard work irrelevant.

 

[python]

Your opening line said:
so, to further develop my earlier deduction in this post that the delay was likely a procedural interruption caused by cas' review of barring ashenden’s testimony…how likely was it to influence the outcome ?


There was no suggestion that any delay is because of Ashenden not being allowed testify - (I even linked the CAS explanation) you introduced an irrelevant point, don't get upset at me that CAS made all that hard work irrelevant.

you're a multiple failure case incarnated. compounded by a remarkable intransigence based on some insecurity driving you to win internets. seriously.

the simple answer to all your problems is in the key question i asked and you chose to ignore. hilited for your blindness.

how likely was it to influence the outcome

the suggestions you missed were in my previous posts. and i even referred to them by providing in a link in the very post you misrepresented. oh well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

for someone castigating so many posters for 'inaccuracies' and taking pride in own pedantry the only way i can see those mistakes is an attempt at deflection and being caught red handed.

you lost again.

Wow -your obsession really has clouded any and all perspective.

When you highlighted my 'mistake' (ie poor choice of phrase) I acknowledged it, unlike yourself who engages in ad-hominens.

More importantly - why would I engage in deflection? Unlike yourself I have linked many of my views and I am more than happy to engage in relevant discussions.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

What - Contador ate a racehorse?

I refer you to the last word in the article's title.

"Spanish police uncover clenbuterol ring doping horses, livestock"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you're a multiple failure case incarnated. compounded by a remarkable intransigence based on some insecurity driving you to win internets. seriously.

the simple answer to all your problems is in the key question i asked and you chose to ignore. hilited for your blindness.

how likely was it to influence the outcome

the suggestions you missed were in my previous posts. and i even referred to them by providing in a link in the very post you misrepresented. oh well.

Which I answered with....

You start off asking what the delay was, a fair question.
But then bring up some "procedural interruption" - and finish off by churning out the same talking points that have been argued already and are irrelevant.

The delay was stated by WADA:

However, the CAS has requested the parties to clarify whether, at this stage, any of them wanted to challenge the composition of the arbitral panel. As all answers were negative, the Panel will now be able to resume its mission. Unfortunately, this regrettable incident has slightly delayed the work of the Panel and the publication of the final decision should now take place during the week of 31 January 2012.