Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Dr. Maserati]

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

"Spanish police uncover clenbuterol ring doping horses, livestock"

And I will refer to the article:

As part of an investigation dating back to May, police discovered that Spasmbronchal, a form of clenbuterol, was being used illegally by two livestock ranches on Gran Canaria and another on Tenerife to increase animals’ body mass before slaughter and then sold for human consumption.

Tenerife and Gran Canaria are not even part of the Spanish mainland - let alone the Basque area of Spain where ACs steak was purchased.

 

[python]

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.

the reason i come hard on you is b/c you are doing to too many good posters who post in good faith. and even if i forced you to acknoledge your mistakes you continue to obfuscate.

if you bothered to excersize your self-advertised sense of accuracy you would first question yourself - have i understood the person i question properly...in stead you engage in endless arguments where the assumption is 'some one has an agenda'.

again, bother yourself to read my posts before accusing me of anything.

the post you quoted contained a link you chose to ignore
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=766192&postcount=791

where i said:

so, the delay was most likely caused by some internal cas review of the complaint regarding blocking ashenden.

again, i linked my statement and it's you who missed it.

 

[ChrisE]

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?

He couldn't, thus the need for a sensible threshold.

 

[python]

Which I answered with....

you deflected it. you did not answer it. see above.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

the reason i come hard on you is b/c you are doing to too many good posters who post in good faith. and even if i forced you to acknoledge your mistakes you continue to obfuscate.

Obfuscate?
I am the one trying to discuss what is relevant to the case (hint, transfusions & DHEP aren't)

You waste everyone's time arguing points that not only I said would be irrelevant, but CAS ruled are irrelavant.
Now - if someone keeps bring up irrelevant stuff one should question why?

if you bothered to excersize your self-advertised sense of accuracy you would first question yourself - have i understood the person i question properly...in stead you engage in endless arguments where the assumption is 'some one has an agenda'.

again, bother yourself to read my posts before accusing me of anything.

the post you quoted contained a link you chose to ignore
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=766192&postcount=791

where i said:


again, i linked my statement and it's you who missed it.

Which I answered above.

 

[python]

lets again conclusively show how your ego is what's driving you to waste everyone's time.

Here are your own words uttered few minutes ago in the very thread
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=767218&postcount=862

There was no suggestion that any delay is because of Ashenden not being allowed testify

I provided the very suggestion way before your you accused me of ‘having not made the suggestion.’

Post # 868 few minutes ago.

Again you are exposed as a poser instead of giving yourself a pause to read and people you doubt a chance to set you straight.

Facts are right there for all to see.

yes, you look pathetic denying them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

lets again conclusively show how your ego is what's driving you to waste everyone's time.

Here are your own words uttered few minutes ago in the very thread
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=767218&postcount=862



I provided the very suggestion way before your you accused me of ‘having not made the suggestion.’

Post # 868 few minutes ago.

Again you are exposed as a poser instead of giving yourself a pause to read and people you doubt a chance to set you straight.

Facts are right there for all to see.

yes, you look pathetic denying them.

I should give up and let you win - as it seems important to you.

Posts 868 is my post??
As for your "suggestion", guess what,it is irrelevant, I am on about what CAS said in their statement, there is no suggestion that Ashendens not being called has contributed to the delay.

Indeed that is quite obvious in the original AP piece;

The CAS arbitrators ordered the chamber emptied while they deliberated and then called the parties back.
The chairman, Efraim Barak, announced that WADA lawyers were not allowed to question Ashenden about these transfusion issues but could cross-examine an anti-doping consultant for Contador's side, Paul Scott.

... the decision was made at the hearing.

 

[python]

I should give up and let you win - as it seems important to you.

to use you fave one-liner. i did not win. you lost. on facts.

Posts 868 is my post??

if you can not go back and trace who's post is who's you're playing games. i'm going to call it off as long as you do it. be sure.

As for your "suggestion", guess what,it is irrelevant, I am on about what CAS said in their statement,

gee, so now you having failed on facts, you now resort to more obfuscation. we all can read what cas said in the statement. the problem is you can't fit it in the bigger picture.

you now have admitted to 1 mistake after being caught red handed. you also now tacitly admitted to another one.

how many can you afford in one night ?

 

[doolols]

Oh for God's sake

 

[Dr. Maserati]

to use you fave one-liner. i did not win. you lost. on facts.

What facts?
You rarely link what you claim and you break out the thesaurus and (attempt to) ridicule those who question you rather than explain.

if you can not go back and trace who's post is who's you're playing games. i'm going to call it off as long as you do it. be sure.

I reread it, yes my mistake - it was your post.

gee, so now you having failed on facts, you now resort to more obfuscation. we all can read what cas said in the statement. the problem is you can't fit it in the bigger picture.

Ah of course the Big Picture - the one that you are not willing to share.

So, whyis it that you can read what CAS said, which confirms what the AP article suggested - and then ignore it to pursue an irrelevant viewpoint?

you now have admitted to 1 mistake after being caught red handed. you also now tacitly admitted to another one.

how many can you afford in one night ?

You seem more interested in keeping score than in civilized discussion, which confirms my suspicion. Have at it.

 

[python]

What facts?
You rarely link what you claim and you break out the thesaurus and (attempt to) ridicule those who question you rather than explain.

bs. if you asked what i meant in that post, as for example m. index did in relation to the same post, you'd get a candid answer. somehow you forgone your fave tactic of asking only when you wish to bash a poster. but i'm glad you admitted being wrong again.

I reread it, yes my mistake - it was your post.

the problem is not that you made a mistake, 2nd one mind you and admitted, the problem is that you assume an 'agenda' b/c of own issue and go on tearing people off. i've seen it too many times with those who're intimidated by this tactic.

Ah of course the Big Picture - the one that you are not willing to share.

not true. i attempted to share my thoughts many times. some latch on. some don't. no biggy. the problem is that YOU often misuse your obvious gift for research and instantly assume an agenda.

So, whyis it that you can read what CAS said, which confirms what the AP article suggested - and then ignore it to pursue an irrelevant viewpoint?

you misunderstand again. the article said something that i set out to test in one of my earlier posts. it checks. the next post was about my thoughts as to how the delay was to impact the final verdict. it was sharing my view of the 'big picture' with all the due reference to not being an expert in some areas. plain, simple, honest sharing you crapped on.

You seem more interested in keeping score than in civilized discussion, which confirms my suspicion. Have at it.

no. see above. and a word of advise. if you doubt what i meant, just ask. don't assume.

 

[Publicus]

And I will refer to the article:

Tenerife and Gran Canaria are not even part of the Spanish mainland - let alone the Basque area of Spain where ACs steak was purchased.

Are they part of the EU?

 

[Nilsson]

All that shows is someone bought a steak.




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".

No, it shows that there are certain circumstances above the general fact that there is a (general) possibility to eat. Circumstances/arguments that could strengthen his theory...

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.

No, because it's a balance of probabilities the likelihood of the other theory is very important. If Contador manages to play down the transfusion theory, his own theory is more likely (how unlikely it may be) and vice versa...

Because neither party can actually prove anything, the panel will have to decide which explanation is the most likely. If WADA can't back up their theory or Contador can't counter WADA's arguments (or the other way around) it will influence the balance...

N.B. I don't know if he's guilty or not, and I personally (can) make a distinction between what I think, what I expect and what I want. Above all I'm only interested in a well argumented decision, whatever the outcome may be...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

bs. if you asked what i meant in that post, as for example m. index did in relation to the same post, you'd get a candid answer. somehow you forgone your fave tactic of asking only when you wish to bash a poster. but i'm glad you admitted being wrong again.

Why would I ask questions on something that is irrelevant?

the problem is not that you made a mistake, 2nd one mind you and admitted, the problem is that you assume an 'agenda' b/c of own issue and go on tearing people off. i've seen it too many times with those who're intimidated by this tactic.

At least I admit my mistakes.

What is "my own issue"? Is that not an assumption?
I do question your motives - for the simple reason of bringing up irrelevant information. Why?

As for me intimidating people - unlike you I have not offered my experience or background as a way to influence discussion. the only people who might feel intimated are the ones who cannot back up specific claims, because I prefer to read the available information to draw my own conclusions.

Which is why I use the applicable laws, because that is exactly what CAS will use.

not true. i attempted to share my thoughts many times. some latch on. some don't. no biggy. the problem is that YOU often misuse your obvious gift for research and instantly assume an agenda.


you misunderstand again. the article said something that i set out to test in one of my earlier posts. it checks. the next post was about my thoughts as to how the delay was to impact the final verdict. it was sharing my view of the 'big picture' with all the due reference to not being an expert in some areas. plain, simple, honest sharing you crapped on.

no. see above. and a word of advise. if you doubt what i meant, just ask. don't assume.

It wasn't me that crapped on it - it was CAS.

I do think (if I may) that you are looking at the conclusion of this case scientifically - when in fact it will be judged on law.
Obviously science, statistics, etc will go in to making an informed opinion, but ultimately it will be the WADA code and any case law that decides this.

 

[Nilsson]

Are the part of the EU?

Yes. More interesting actually are the arrests in http://www.lacronicadeleon.es/2011/02/09/leon/primeros-detenidos-por-la-carne-ilegal-decomisada-que-se-eleva-a-16500-kilos-112227.htm[/b]]Castilla Y Leon (the most likely origin of Contador's meat) on 9 february 2011. Just a couple of days before Contador was cleared by the RFEC. More than 16000 kg of illegal meat, which was falsified and making it impossible to determine their (exact) origin. Medical tests were done, but the outcome has not been reported...


The supplier of the Basque butcher seems to have the same registration problems (even the butcher acknowledges that)...

Zabaleta said that he buys his beef from a local provider, which he refused to name publicly, but said that meat likely did not come from Spain’s Basque Country.

“It’s impossible” to determine exactly where the steaks might have come from, he said. “The meat is from another region, but I cannot tell you if it’s León, Salamanca or Catalunya, but it’s not from (Basque Country).”

 

[Berzin]

Yes. More interesting actually are the arrests in http://www.lacronicadeleon.es/2011/02/09/leon/primeros-detenidos-por-la-carne-ilegal-decomisada-que-se-eleva-a-16500-kilos-112227.htm]Castilla Y Leon (the most likely origin of Contador's meat) on 9 february 2011. Just a couple of days before Contador was cleared by the RFEC. More than 16000 kg of illegal meat, which was falsified and making it impossible to determine their (exact) origin. Medical tests were done, but the outcome has not been reported...


The same problem the supplier of the Basque butcher seems to have the same registration problem (even the butcher acknowledges that)...[/B]

I've always found it odd that in a world full of cheating and corner-cutting, the Basque Meat Federation was deemed a priori a paradigm of honor and integrity from the very beginning to the point where their industry was never up for suspicion.

 

[Merckx index]

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?

How about a hairtest? The ponger did that. Why didn’t Bert?

Since the question was "if it were you", I will add, how about submitting to a series of DEHP tests, to establish what his baseline level of that substance actually is? If I were innocent, I personally would have no problem with that.

If I had as much money to throw around as Bert I would also think about funding a test of the meat-eating Spanish population, to find out how prevalent CB really is. At the very least, if I continued to eat meat, I would test every sample, not just to establish innocence in any possible future case, but most importantly, to get some insight into how likely it really is that I could have ingested contaminated meat in the first place.

"Spanish police uncover clenbuterol ring doping horses, livestock"

I’ve said it again and again, but I’ll say it once more: nobody denies that livestock get doped with CB in Spain and other parts of Europe. In the vast majority of cases, the drug is cleared from the animal before slaughter, precisely so that the meat will test clean. The only statistics that matter are those of the meat, not of the live animals.

 

[python]

Why would I ask questions on something that is irrelevant?

there you go again. b/c your arrogant assumption of what's irrelevant is a self-admitted mistake.

At least I admit my mistakes.

but you fail to use them to reflect as to why you failed. that's why you admissions are hollow. they only were the resulted of my persistence of exposing your publicly verifiable failures on facts.

What is "my own issue"?

your issue was explained. look it up above.

As for me intimidating people - unlike you I have not offered my experience or background as a way to influence discussion. the only people who might feel intimated are the ones who cannot back up specific claims, because I prefer to read the available information to draw my own conclusions.

this entire passage is a pure bs. you constantly try to intimidate, outlast, bully and such. as to my experience and background, it's for the receiver to validate. i'm happy with whatever people decide.

Which is why I use the applicable laws, because that is exactly what CAS will use.

you have no clue what those laws mean.

I do think (if I may) that you are looking at the conclusion of this case scientifically - when in fact it will be judged on law.

you have to forgive me for my harsh criticism again... you have no clue if you honestly don't understand that both the law and science apply. separating the two is, well, i said it lacking the understanding of bigger issues.

Obviously science, statistics, etc will go in to making an informed opinion, but ultimately it will be the WADA code and any case law that decides this.

again, genius, wada code has to be based on the evidence that is in turn based on science, statistics, logic, oral evidence etc...they don't and can't exist separately.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, it shows that there are certain circumstances above the general fact that there is a (general) possibility to eat. Circumstances/arguments that could strengthen his theory...




No, because it's a balance of probabilities the likelihood of the other theory is very important. If Contador manages to play down the transfusion theory, his own theory is more likely (how unlikely it may be) and vice versa...

Because neither party can actually prove anything, the panel will have to decide which explanation is the most likely. If WADA can't back up their theory or Contador can't counter WADA's arguments (or the other way around) it will influence the balance...

N.B. I don't know if he's guilty or not, and I personally (can) make a distinction between what I think, what I expect and what I want. Above all I'm only interested in a well argumented decision, whatever the outcome may be...

To the blue - I agree.
I do not know if AC is 'guilty' or not. But he has clenbuterol in his system - it leaves the question, how and why?

To the highlighted - kindof sortof.
Obviously ACs team will try to disprove ways that the clenbuterol got in to his system. However, even though WADA are experts in anti-doping they do not know all the ways clenbuterol can be used. Indeed its various uses and benefits have been argued here.

This is why it falls back on the athlete to establish how the clenbuterol got there and indeed why I suspect that Ashenden was not called to testify.

 

[Publicus]

Yes. More interesting actually are the arrests in http://www.lacronicadeleon.es/2011/02/09/leon/primeros-detenidos-por-la-carne-ilegal-decomisada-que-se-eleva-a-16500-kilos-112227.htm[/b]]Castilla Y Leon (the most likely origin of Contador's meat) on 9 february 2011. Just a couple of days before Contador was cleared by the RFEC. More than 16000 kg of illegal meat, which was falsified and making it impossible to determine their (exact) origin. Medical tests were done, but the outcome has not been reported...


The supplier of the Basque butcher seems to have the same registration problems (even the butcher acknowledges that)...

Thanks. All very interesting.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Please move on from the personal bickering to genuine discussion without nitpicking guys.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

there you go again. b/c your arrogant assumption of what's irrelevant is a self-admitted mistake.


but you fail to use them to reflect as to why you failed. that's why you admissions are hollow. they only were the resulted of my persistence of exposing your publicly verifiable failures on facts.
your issue was explained. look it up above.

this entire passage is a pure bs. you constantly try to intimidate, outlast, bully and such. as to my experience and background, it's for the receiver to validate. i'm happy with whatever people decide.

you have no clue what those laws mean.

you have to forgive me for my harsh criticism again... you have no clue if you honestly don't understand that both the law and science apply. separating the two is, well, i said it lacking the understanding of bigger issues.
again, genius, wada code has to be based on the evidence that is in turn based on science, statistics, logic, oral evidence etc...they don't and can't exist separately.

So, in short, I am clueless.
(even though you cannot show where) - gotit.

 

[python]

So, in short, I am clueless.
(even though you cannot show where) - gotit.

i have shown plenty. and you have admitted to to the mistakes i've shown.

that should suffice to respect the mod request to move on.

 

[ChrisE]

How about a hairtest? The ponger did that. Why didn’t Bert?

Since the question was "if it were you", I will add, how about submitting to a series of DEHP tests, to establish what his baseline level of that substance actually is? If I were innocent, I personally would have no problem with that.

If I had as much money to throw around as Bert I would also think about funding a test of the meat-eating Spanish population, to find out how prevalent CB really is. At the very least, if I continued to eat meat, I would test every sample, not just to establish innocence in any possible future case, but most importantly, to get some insight into how likely it really is that I could have ingested contaminated meat in the first place.



I’ve said it again and again, but I’ll say it once more: nobody denies that livestock get doped with CB in Spain and other parts of Europe. In the vast majority of cases, the drug is cleared from the animal before slaughter, precisely so that the meat will test clean. The only statistics that matter are those of the meat, not of the live animals.

Yes MI, and you have also shown how improbable it is for a person to test at a level of AC's after digesting said meat.

That being said, it is possible for individuals to test positive regardless of where they have been, etc. Why not just let some of the bad guys go and establish a threshold, based upon reasoning such as yours, and be done with it?

 

[python]

How about a hairtest? The ponger did that. Why didn’t Bert?

was discussed and addressed. i agree it would be a powerful evidence if it goes his way. but we have also discussed the issues that may have prevented him from using it (apart of course from hiding doping), such as learning of his test almost 2 months after he gave the sample...hair grows you know.

how about submitting to a series of DEHP tests,

not a bad idea but contador has stated many times he welcomes any tests on his samples going back. so it seems it's up to wada and the uci to take him up on his word. any testing he'd done outside the wada/uci system would instantly be termed as suspicious and invalid. i'm speculating there are some of his samples around. we also don't know if wada hasn't try to do it. if i was wada i would certainly ask and pay for the dehp tests. not sure if wada would be interested in making public they found nothing...just another point to consider.

In the vast majority of cases, the drug is cleared from the animal before slaughter, precisely so that the meat will test clean.

read your statement again...with my substitutes - in the vast majority of cases, the drug is cleared from the ATHLETE before testing, precisely that he tests clean. how realistic is that with the UCI and why shouldn't it apply to other spheres of life ?