Dallas_ said:Depending on RFEC's decision, either Contador or UCI/WADA will appeal this case to CAS. In my opinion, the CAS decision will be a 2 year sanction.
cheers to all
theswordsman said:25,000 athletes let their Whereabouts blank in ADAMS today as a first protest against WADA.
There's a real possibility that WADA will be pressured to set a minimum that would make 50 picograms a non-positive. There's also a real chance they'll be forced to remove the strict liability. So before this could even go to CAS, the two positives for 50 & 20 picograms might not be considered a violation.
It would be a shame to have people have wasted all that hate, and the cool talk about plasticizers and mystery Astana members spilling the beans to a humor magazine, but some times justice happens.
theswordsman said:25,000 athletes let their Whereabouts blank in ADAMS today as a first protest against WADA. They want, among other things, to be able to vote athletes to be part of the system.
Dallas_ said:Depending on RFEC's decision, either Contador or UCI/WADA will appeal this case to CAS. In my opinion, the CAS decision will be a 2 year sanction.
cheers to all
theswordsman said:25,000 athletes let their Whereabouts blank in ADAMS today as a first protest against WADA. They want, among other things, to be able to vote athletes to be part of the system. They're also going after the legality of strict liability, where athletes who have been found innocent were still punished.]
An athlete who has a banned substance is NOT innocent. Even if they didn't intent to take the substance, they still derived the benefit of the performance enhancing drug. So your definition of innocent is off-base.
theswordsman said:There's a real possibility that WADA will be pressured to set a minimum that would make 50 picograms a non-positive. There's also a real chance they'll be forced to remove the strict liability. So before this could even go to CAS, the two positives for 50 & 20 picograms might not be considered a violation.
theswordsman said:Since there are two large groups of athletes who are in no trouble for anything pushing to make the changes, and those efforts will be more public as time goes on, I'm done fighting the argument here.
theswordsman said:My prediction is that Spain will find Contador innocent, and he will be back to racing March 2 at Vuelta a Murcia. WADA and the UCI will be facing other legal battles, with UCI trying to defend the existence of the Biological Passport. I've thought all along that WADA
theswordsman said:WADA and the UCI will be facing other legal battles, with UCI trying to defend the existence of the Biological Passport. I've thought all along that WADA would take it to CAS, but I think now that other athletes in other sports will keep that from happening. Even though a rule change wouldn't be retroactive, the chances that CAS would take away a Tour de France victory and millions of Euros in salary to punish someone for something the doping organization no longer believes is a violation are pretty darned slim.
Merckx index said:How many of the 25,000 are cyclists? You know, those athletes who refuse to form a union, who refuse to condemn any of their own when they're busted, yet will never suggest that there is any problem with any test except when it is their positive on the line. Those guys who accepted an IRMS-based test without a peep. Who accepted the HBT without a peep. Who accepted the biopassport without a peep. Those guys who take an every man for himself attitude. Who insist that the only problem with the sport is all the people bad-mouthing it. Who will sign any piece of paper put in front of them.
These are guys who want to be part of the system? Really?
python said:what I don’t get is what makes this thread any different from the thousands of posts about the same sameness repeated one hundred thousand times already ?
there are no new facts, no new evidence, no new developments, no wada code revisions to judge any different than 5 month ago..
anyone who cared to sift through the publicly released and confirmed facts (and digested them logically) had known 5 months ago that there are only two realistic possibilities left - it’s either meat contamination or a blood transfusion.
Nothing else. really nothing.
if he manages to show that transfusion probability was 49% vs. contamination 51%, he walks. if it’s the other way around, he goes on vacation.
but people will blather, rant, believe what they want to believe and tell every they definitely ‘know’ what wada will do or will not do.
must be post-christmas blues ?
python said:what I don’t get is what makes this thread any different from the thousands of posts about the same sameness repeated one hundred thousand times already ?
there are no new facts, no new evidence, no new developments, no wada code revisions to judge any different than 5 month ago..
anyone who cared to sift through the publicly released and confirmed facts (and digested them logically) had known 5 months ago that there are only two realistic possibilities left - it’s either meat contamination or a blood transfusion.
Nothing else. really nothing.
if he manages to show that transfusion probability was 49% vs. contamination 51%, he walks. if it’s the other way around, he goes on vacation.
but people will blather, rant, believe what they want to believe and tell every they definitely ‘know’ what wada will do or will not do.
must be post-christmas blues ?
BroDeal said:No way he gets two years. His lawyers will point to the minute level of Clen plus the clean test the day before and argue that it had to be contamination. The level was so small that there was no benefit.
He starts the TdF next near.
TERMINATOR said:WADA is not pressured by athletes "voicing" their concern. WADA works for the IOC and the Olympics. Not sure how you think your group is putting "pressure" on WADA to change anything.
You also have no evidence that labs are "contaminating" samples and causing them to test positive for clenbuterol. Why would clenbuterol be singled out and not every other substance?
python said:anyone who cared to sift through the publicly released and confirmed facts (and digested them logically) had known 5 months ago that there are only two realistic possibilities left - it’s either meat contamination or a blood transfusion.
Nothing else. really nothing.
python said:. care to bring links with proven veracity that wada indeed tested the meat and not just sent a chap to ask for certificates. !
theswordsman said:25,000 athletes let their Whereabouts blank in ADAMS today as a first protest against WADA. They want, among other things, to be able to vote athletes to be part of the system. They're also going after the legality of strict liability, where athletes who have been found innocent were still punished.
On a separate front, athletes are concerned that labs admit accidental contamination from Clenbuterol is very possible, yet WADA refused to have a minimum threshold for the substance, even though labs are only required to be able to test for 200 picograms. So another group of athletes who have never tested positive for anything are pushing for WADA to set a minimum. That would certainly be above the 50 found in Contador or 80 for Otcharov, the athlete they named.
There's a real possibility that WADA will be pressured to set a minimum that would make 50 picograms a non-positive. There's also a real chance they'll be forced to remove the strict liability. So before this could even go to CAS, the two positives for 50 & 20 picograms might not be considered a violation.
Since there are two large groups of athletes who are in no trouble for anything pushing to make the changes, and those efforts will be more public as time goes on, I'm done fighting the argument here. The rules about Clenbuterol were set by a couple or a few of fallible human beings. It wasn't handed down from a deity that 50 picograms of Clenbuterol in your urine means you were a cheater. If thousands of people have seen enough highly publicized stories about their fellow athletes and are willing to call shenanigans on the people who made the choice, so be it.
My prediction is that Spain will find Contador innocent, and he will be back to racing March 2 at Vuelta a Murcia. WADA and the UCI will be facing other legal battles, with UCI trying to defend the existence of the Biological Passport. I've thought all along that WADA would take it to CAS, but I think now that other athletes in other sports will keep that from happening. Even though a rule change wouldn't be retroactive, the chances that CAS would take away a Tour de France victory and millions of Euros in salary to punish someone for something the doping organization no longer believes is a violation are pretty darned slim.
It would be a shame to have people have wasted all that hate, and the cool talk about plasticizers and mystery Astana members spilling the beans to a humor magazine, but some times justice happens.
He should serve one year...... the question is will the Spanish Fed (RFEC) do it because if it is anything less than that I would expect WADA to appeal.Dallas_ said:Depending on RFEC's decision, either Contador or UCI/WADA will appeal this case to CAS. In my opinion, the CAS decision will be a 2 year sanction.
cheers to all