Official "another interesting piece I found on Alberto Contador" Thread

[who dat]

Meth is and wasn't performance enhancing.

The point wasn't that they both took performance enhancing supplements, the point was that in both instances both authorities, cycling and tennis respectively covered up or tryed to cover up that one of their high profile superstars were caught.

 

[Digger]

But lets just say for argument sake that tennis has a doping problem every bit as bad as cycling and the corruption is as bad also, do two wrongs make a right? Tennis has no relevance to cycling. It's up to cycling to sort its own problems out. And the line about other sports has become synonymous with doping apologists.

 

[JPM London]

Don't insult my intelligence by saying "some lawyers wrote a long report, and they know law, and you don't, so this is the correct decision.".

The decision states that blood doping is unlikely, and meat ingestion is likely. THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS THE TRUTH.


You can write ANYTHING in a verbose report to come to whatever conclusion you want. This is the problem ! It is CLEAR as glass the RFEC WANTED to clear Contador, and they spent a LOT of time figuring out a way to do it. Any "legal report" justifying their pre-arranged decision is MEANINGLESS.

Whoa Nelly! Sorry, I didn't know I was insulting anything... Are we reading the same post here?

I've said no such thing that you want to turn it into - all I said was that someone in a position of knowledge and in a position of fighting doping in sports in general commented that the decision was not a white wash, that the decision was based on proper judicial work. He based that on a) being a professor at law that b) has read the report.

I also said you (and others) are free to feel different, but mainly posted it because I myself (along with most punters on here) have a) NOT read the report and b) AREN'T professors at law - hence his evaluation could be considered useful.

Look mate, I'm very, very sorry for apparently having made the deadly sin of "insulting your intelligence" by posting a link with information that some people might find interesting - Going forward I will make sure to do as told and only post aggressive dribble...

FWIW I'd agree that the UCI's handling of the case prior to it going to Spain is very open to criticism for being corrupt - by the looks of it they tried to cover it up. There might be other explanations for not making the test public, but it looks like a good explanation.

As for the process in Spain it's far from perfect, but let's not forget that:
a) Dealing with the case in Spain itself is NOT the Spaniards decision. It's a silly system that does nothing more than open the process up to this type of criticism - warranted or not.
b) The outside comments from politicians and so on were not helpful at all and, again, will open the process to the above criticism - warranted or not.

If the only way the Spanish federation can free itself of "guilt" of being corrupt by giving a rider a two year ban, does that make it a fair process?

If the federation is NOT corrupt and they did NOT succumb to the pressure from outside, they are still entitled to make the decision they did - in fact if that is the proper decision it would be difficult to see how they should decide differently.

That is why I posted the link, as it is a comment from a completely unbiased review from a professional in the field of law AND anti doping.

If you don't like that people point at other possibilities than your own "truth", then that's fine - but your ridiculous, aggressive attack on me for merely posting a link and noting why is way out there... Sorry, but I don't need to insult your intelligence - you seem quite capable of that yourself.

 

[Andynonomous]

Propoganda

Whoa Nelly! Sorry, I didn't know I was insulting anything... Are we reading the same post here?

I've said no such thing that you want to turn it into - all I said was that someone in a position of knowledge and in a position of fighting doping in sports in general commented that the decision was not a white wash, that the decision was based on proper judicial work. He based that on a) being a professor at law that b) has read the report.

I also said you (and others) are free to feel different, but mainly posted it because I myself (along with most punters on here) have a) NOT read the report and b) AREN'T professors at law - hence his evaluation could be considered useful.

Look mate, I'm very, very sorry for apparently having made the deadly sin of "insulting your intelligence" by posting a link with information that some people might find interesting - Going forward I will make sure to do as told and only post aggressive dribble...

FWIW I'd agree that the UCI's handling of the case prior to it going to Spain is very open to criticism for being corrupt - by the looks of it they tried to cover it up. There might be other explanations for not making the test public, but it looks like a good explanation.

As for the process in Spain it's far from perfect, but let's not forget that:
a) Dealing with the case in Spain itself is NOT the Spaniards decision. It's a silly system that does nothing more than open the process up to this type of criticism - warranted or not.
b) The outside comments from politicians and so on were not helpful at all and, again, will open the process to the above criticism - warranted or not.

If the only way the Spanish federation can free itself of "guilt" of being corrupt by giving a rider a two year ban, does that make it a fair process?

If the federation is NOT corrupt and they did NOT succumb to the pressure from outside, they are still entitled to make the decision they did - in fact if that is the proper decision it would be difficult to see how they should decide differently.

That is why I posted the link, as it is a comment from a completely unbiased review from a professional in the field of law AND anti doping.

If you don't like that people point at other possibilities than your own "truth", then that's fine - but your ridiculous, aggressive attack on me for merely posting a link and noting why is way out there... Sorry, but I don't need to insult your intelligence - you seem quite capable of that yourself.

First, you make a posting that is clearly sympathetic with the partisan RFEC ruling (including a link to some partisan lawyer who is sympathetic with the ruling as well). Then you say you are just "posting a link".

Look, you are sympathetic with Contador. I get it. But don't pretend to be something you are clearly not (neutral on whether the process was legitimate).

 

[JPM London]

First, you make a posting that is clearly sympathetic with the partisan RFEC ruling (including a link to some partisan lawyer who is sympathetic with the ruling as well). Then you say you are just "posting a link".

Look, you are sympathetic with Contador. I get it. But don't pretend to be something you are clearly not (neutral on whether the process was legitimate).

None of the above is correct, sorry to disappoint you there.
Don't put words in my mouth or attribute sentiments to me - it's ridiculous and it insults your intelligence. As I said earlier, you don't need my help for that you're plenty able yourself.

I think I'll just move on to ignoring you...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Whoa Nelly! Sorry, I didn't know I was insulting anything... Are we reading the same post here?

I've said no such thing that you want to turn it into - all I said was that someone in a position of knowledge and in a position of fighting doping in sports in general commented that the decision was not a white wash, that the decision was based on proper judicial work. He based that on a) being a professor at law that b) has read the report.

I also said you (and others) are free to feel different, but mainly posted it because I myself (along with most punters on here) have a) NOT read the report and b) AREN'T professors at law - hence his evaluation could be considered useful.

Look mate, I'm very, very sorry for apparently having made the deadly sin of "insulting your intelligence" by posting a link with information that some people might find interesting - Going forward I will make sure to do as told and only post aggressive dribble...

FWIW I'd agree that the UCI's handling of the case prior to it going to Spain is very open to criticism for being corrupt - by the looks of it they tried to cover it up. There might be other explanations for not making the test public, but it looks like a good explanation.

As for the process in Spain it's far from perfect, but let's not forget that:
a) Dealing with the case in Spain itself is NOT the Spaniards decision. It's a silly system that does nothing more than open the process up to this type of criticism - warranted or not.
b) The outside comments from politicians and so on were not helpful at all and, again, will open the process to the above criticism - warranted or not.

If the only way the Spanish federation can free itself of "guilt" of being corrupt by giving a rider a two year ban, does that make it a fair process?

If the federation is NOT corrupt and they did NOT succumb to the pressure from outside, they are still entitled to make the decision they did - in fact if that is the proper decision it would be difficult to see how they should decide differently.

That is why I posted the link, as it is a comment from a completely unbiased review from a professional in the field of law AND anti doping.

If you don't like that people point at other possibilities than your own "truth", then that's fine - but your ridiculous, aggressive attack on me for merely posting a link and noting why is way out there... Sorry, but I don't need to insult your intelligence - you seem quite capable of that yourself.

Alright, that's it!

The next time someone tries to teach me something, or tries to broaden my horizon, I'm going to track them down and kick them squarely in the n*ts!

Let me believe what I KNOW is right! If you're too 'smart' to see the obvious fact that I AM RIGHT, then I can't talk to you anymore.

Thanks, JPM (aka Mr. Smarty-Pants)...


(note: all sarcasm in above post is implicitly meant)

 

[Hugh Januss]

Andy, while I agree with many of your posts, I think you are going a bit off the deep end here. Suggest you drop it down a couple of notches.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Source:

Contador confirmed he will ride the Volta a Catalunya, Vuelta a Castilla y Leon and Fleche-Wallonne before the Giro d'Italia.

I knew he would come back and try to win this. You could see it on his face as he stood on the podium last year.

 

[Andynonomous]

Break the Omerta !

WTF is THIS?!

I was watching País Vasco on Universal Sports, and this was the commercial they ran for the 2011 Giro d’Italia:


Now just what-in-the-hell kind of a way is that to promote a Grand Tour, or cycling itself for that matter? I don’t see how that does a damn thing other than to perpetuate the negative public image that surrounds cycling to the passive fan. But then I had to wonder just how much of this is the continued smear campaign against Contador’s image now that Versus and Universal Sports are merging under NBC umbrella.

It reminds me a bit of the “Take back the Tour” campaign that Versus ran heading into the 2007 TdF. But it seems like a colossally stupid way to promote a sport.

And just how does watching the Giro on TV allow one to “decide” if Contador is a “cheater” or not? It would seem to immediately dismiss any success he might have. Why bother to watch then?

I can’t possibly imagine any other sport being “promoted” like this.
I don’t remember any major networks running similar commercials when Barry Bonds was approaching the home run record. Did people talk about the suspicions? Of course. But would a network use those suspicions to “promote” viewership? Uh, no.

I never cease to be amazed at the ways in which the sport continues to shoot itself in the foot. Even if this example is the media's doing, it usually starts at the top.

(btw, I searched in vain for a link to the clip. Couldn't find anything online yet)

I often hear on the tennis forums, "ya, that is just a cycling problem". This is the denial by tennis fans when a bust is made that includes all kinds of athletes, (ie. el Puerto) including tennis players.

Cycling already has a VERY poor reputation. By being more overt about the problem, you are not seriously damaging pro cycling's reputation IMO.

I don't see how you can fix an obvious problem, without acknowledging it first.

 

[JA.Tri]

change of scene edited after next post, sorry

Please refer to:

CN:CAS will clear Contador, says Spanish cycling lawyer
April 12, 02:45
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-...cycling-lawyer


I do not recall seeing the like on previous such CAS cases. Sounds touch "invested" and "pre-emptive" (my perception).

Does seem a bit "he doth protest too much". Reasonable inferences are:

RFEC does not make mistakes
CAS would be in error to reverse "our" decision
Evidence "cut and dried" no other decision possible

or perhaps

"I believe we made a sound decision".

While lawyer, Luis Sanz, may be justified on the evidence before RFEC...who canna know the quality and quantity of additional evidence that might be placed before CAS (and that presumes RFEC did not make an error/oversight).

Also I pondered this:

"Sanz, who was emphatic in his view that Spanish anti-doping law was "even tougher" than international law, believes the task at hand for the CAS should be relatively simple."

and am left quizzical given previous matters where Spanish jurisdiction might have been asserted.

Bolded= added

 

[Andynonomous]

Thats what lawyers do.

Please refer to:

CN:CAS will clear Contador, says Spanish cycling lawyer
April 12, 02:45

I do not recall seeing the like on previous cases. Sounds "invested" and "pre-emptive" (my perception).

Does seem a bit "he doth protest too much". Reasonable inferences are:

RFEC does not make mistakes
CAS would be in error to reverse "our" decision
Evidence "cut and dried" no other decision possible

or perhaps

"I believe we made a sound decision".



While lawyer may be justified on the evidence before RFEC...who canna know the quality and quantity of additional evidence that might be placed before CAS (and that presumes RFEC did not make an error/oversight).

Thats what lawyers do. They make it sound like their position HAS to be adhered to, because that "is what the law says" (even though it is just their extremely biased opinion of what the law says). This is meant to "fire up the rednecks" that agree with him, and intimidate the CAS into asceding to their position.

It is a VERY old tactic, that works some of the time, but rarely leads to true justice. As a matter of fact, it (intimidating the "jurors") is the corruption of justice.

This is the same tactic that the president of Spain used prior to the RFEC decision. They figured that it worked once, it may work again.

 

[JA.Tri]

change of scene

Duplicate sorry

 

[JA.Tri]

Thats what lawyers do.

Andynonomous
Thats what lawyers do.

I tend to agree. Strikes me as odd, however, because:

.RFEC are "intended" to be impartial
.Influence of CAS adjudicators by such clumsy tactics (given above point) seems counter-productive...

 

[Andynonomous]

Andynonomous
Thats what lawyers do.

I tend to agree. Strikes me as odd, however, because:

.RFEC are "intended" to be impartial
.Influence of CAS adjudicators by such clumsy tactics (given above point) seems counter-productive...

Whether it will work in this case, no-one knows. The knee-jerk reaction by partisan advocates usually is to use this tactic however.

 

[roundabout]

Once Contador (or any rider) is cleared by the national federation and that decision is appealed the federation becomes one of the respondents together with the rider.

 

[theswordsman]

However, delays are beginning to accumulate. Accountant Defense, a legal team led by Gorka Villar, son of the president of the Spanish soccer federation and the Spanish federation, which shares the broker used condition, they should request an extension of one week of the term to designate their arbitrator in the case. According to defense sources, the first two successful candidates declined the offer, and the third on the list, Germany's Ulrich Haas, professor of law at Zurich, ordered several days of reflection before accepting.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/Francia/Italia/Contador/elpepidep/20110414elpepidep_10/Tes

 

[Merckx index]

According to defense sources, the f...actly was he mulling over during this period?

 

[M Sport]

Here's a question for Python or someone else who may have more insight into the protocol involved: When a defendant like Bert asks someone to be on the panel, does he present that candidate with information pertaining to the case that is not publicly available?

I don't think that is accepted protocol but you will find most of your questions will be answered here http://www.tas-cas.org/news I had a good look through the site when the Valverde case was happening and it has some useful information about the way tehy work.

From what I remember the arbitrators appointed have to be impartial i.e. not have been involved or connected with either party. To me that would rule out supplying them with evidence or documents to look over.

 

[biokemguy]

Wouldn't that be pro-bono work?

He probably knew, from the time that UCI announced it would appeal, that he was a possible panel candidate, and if so, I assume would have thoroughly familiarized himself with the case (if he wasn't already). That being so, he should have been in a position to give his answer immediately. So what exactly was he mulling over during this period?

I would be surprised if any lawyer would familiarize themselves with a case that they *might* become involved with; even if the chances are high.

Is he employed by CAS to be ready for any case on a moments notice?

 

[FreeWheelin]

Contador's possible susspenstion

Hi, I just wanted to ask a question:
If Contador does get suspended will the time that he could not race count toward 'time served'?
I dont remember the exact time line but there was that period from the announcement of the adverse analytical finding until he was cleared, say Oct 10-March 11, 5 months. If he gets 12 months would he just have to serve another 7?

 

[Andynonomous]

Journalist finally says what we are all thinking.

Tennis journalist "Steve Tignor" implies that the Spanish authorities are "protecting" Contador.

"So important in Spain, it seems, that a cyclist like Contador can appear to be protected by the authorities. That doesn't help anyone. Making sports stars untouchable heroes just makes it harder for fans to keep believing in the legitimacy and significance of what they’re watching."

http://tinyurl.com/3m9zfpe

Of course, since Tignor is a tennis journalist, I view this as an indirect accusation towards Spanish TENNIS players, not Spanish cyclists.

 

[krebs303]

I really had to chuckle at this headline
Contador: The Giro d'Italia could be won in the hotel

"It is possible that the Giro could be won in the hotel," he said.

 

[D-Queued]

I really had to chuckle at this headline
Contador: The Giro d'Italia could be won in the hotel

"It is possible that the Giro could be won in the hotel," he said.

Always wondered where the deals were made.

Isn't the guy that is putting a spotlight on match fixing the same guy that is supposed to be banned right now?

How appropriate.

Dave.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I really had to chuckle at this headline
Contador: The Giro d'Italia could be won in the hotel

"It is possible that the Giro could be won in the hotel," he said.

I thought that as well.

Won in the hotel at the point of syringe.

 

[Cobber]

I really had to chuckle at this headline
Contador: The Giro d'Italia could be won in the hotel

"It is possible that the Giro could be won in the hotel," he said.

I laughed as well.....

I would hasten to add that possibly every grand tour in the last 15 years has been won in the hotel room (or team bus "broken down" on a mountain pass)!