Opinion: After CAS , what will Alberto's penalty be?

[sniper]

"25,000 athletes let their Whereabouts blank in ADAMS today as a first protest against WADA"

Did they?
If they did it is the biggest silent protest in the history of sport. And, yes,I saw the Spanish publication that said this was due to happen (& Pezcycling picked it up too) but I have seen nothing reported to say it went ahead.


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.


Alessandro Colo - CONI accepted that he ingested Clen accidentallybut he still received a 1 year ban.
Jessica Hardy (swimmer) - was given a 1 year ban by CAS, which upheld an appeal by WADA of the original decision by USADA of 1 year.

However some other athletes have been banned for 2 years -Fuyu Li, Callum Priestley (Athletics) Ouyang Kunpeng, Tong Wen (Judo) and Ouyang Kunpeng (Swimmer) was banned for life.

Interesting. Too bad we don't get any details on how Colo was able to convince the CONI of accidental ingestion (well, besides having raced in Mexico). A hairtest?
In the Otcharov case, the hairtest was said to have had significant evidential power (in Otcharov's favor of course).

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

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.

Please think before you type. Did you even think about your 'definition' of innocent, or just set whatever was most convenient for the conclusion you wished to draw in this specifc instance.

I'm not going to give a specific example of why the idea that anyone who benefits from rule infringements they did not intend or even commit themselves is guilty of that rule infringement, because a 5 year old could come up with a good counter-example.

 

[Merckx index]

As Python said, and as I said about a week ago, nothing new in this case has emerged for quite a while. It is either contamination or transfusion. There has also been a poll previously in this forum on what Contador's sentence would be. But I understand that forums are addictive, and if there is nothing new to discuss, people rehash the old.

that there is no documentation that the drug can go beyond the bovines liver and actually appear in the meat in sufficient quantities to render a positive urine test in the consumer, there exists only one REALISTIC explanation

HE DOPED

Without challenging your conclusion that Bert doped, I will point out that I posted here when this story broke an article that showed that, yes, CB concentrations in meat can be sufficient to result in a urine positive. In the study,volunteers ate meat from animals that had been given an oral regimen of CB. The urine CB levels were in some cases nearly 20x what was found in Bert's system, though granted, the animals were killed shortly after the final dose, which may not be the case in actual cattle production. But the possibility is definitely there, the problem, as many have pointed out, is that evidence indicates there is very little contaminated meat in Spain.

Wrt the hairtest that someone in this thread mentioned, that was discussed here not long ago. As I pointed out, it's generally only good for a few months. If Bert obtained the CB from transfusion--meaning he was taking CB at some time regularly, and withdrew blood for transfusion during that period--it is not clear that he would have a positive hair test at this point in time.

Finally, I remind some people here that the reason some drug levels are set so low is that because even if a low level indicates an amount that could not be performance enhancing, it's not generally known how long prior to the test the athlete might have taken them. That was Ayotte's main point. In Bert's case, it's mute, because he tested negative on two days prior to his positive, but most athletes are not tested for several days in a row, so having a very low or even no threshold is basically the only way to screen for abusers.

 

[sniper]

Quote by MERCKX:
Wrt the hairtest that someone in this thread mentioned, that was discussed here not long ago. As I pointed out, it's generally only good for a few months. If Bert obtained the CB from transfusion--meaning he was taking CB at some time regularly, and withdrew blood for transfusion during that period--it is not clear that he would have a positive hair test at this point in time.

Agreed, a negative hairtest doesn't disprove the transfusion-hypothesis.
But think of it vice-versa: if AC is innocent, and if his beef-tale is correct, his hairtest must be negative. So I don't understand why he hasn't done a hairtest. Or has he?
To stand any chance at all, he needs to be able to show a negative hairtest, and as far as I know, he hasn't shown one yet.

NB: This comment was made today in a German newsprogram, and on that basis they concluded the RFEC is about to suspend AC.

 

[pedaling squares]

... And now suspended for a nanoinfraction. All while he is one of the greatest cyclists of his generation. Is the guy just a hate magnet? Does he smell really bad? There has to be something behind all this.

Yes. An illegal effort to enhance performance by way of ingestion of a banned substance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

<snipped for brevity>

Finally, I remind some people here that the reason some drug levels are set so low is that because even if a low level indicates an amount that could not be performance enhancing, it's not generally known how long prior to the test the athlete might have taken them. That was Ayotte's main point. In Bert's case, it's mute, because he tested negative on two days prior to his positive, but most athletes are not tested for several days in a row, so having a very low or even no threshold is basically the only way to screen for abusers.

The highlighted would only be valid if all Contadors samples were tested in Cologne. As only 10 samples in total were sent to Cologne then it is probable that the samples taken prior to the positive (July 21) were sent to Lausanne which cannot detect such low levels of clenbuterol.

 

[python]

snip......So I don't understand why he hasn't done a hairtest. Or has he?
To stand any chance at all, he needs to be able to show a negative hairtest, and as far as I know, he hasn't shown one yet.

snip

repeating again the previously posted and well discussed information.........

contador's legal team claimed that his defense will be based on the ovcharov's and gasquet's defense. both used hair follicle test to successfully convince the jury that they were not long-term users of the ped found in their body.

also theswordsman posted that one of contador's lawyers recommended that he take the test. so it would not be surprising he indeed had the test but did not feel the need to inform the public.

 

[python]

The highlighted would only be valid if all Contadors samples were tested in Cologne. As only 10 samples in total were sent to Cologne then it is probable that the samples taken prior to the positive (July 21) were sent to Lausanne which cannot detect such low levels of clenbuterol.

imo it's a low probability scenario.

more likely all of contador's samples featuring in the de boer's report (including the 2 days before the positive) were tested by cologne. the hint is in the time line of the alleged plasticizer test on the said days - the german tv station showed a graph claiming that contador's urine was tested by cologne for plasticizers on 3 days before, during and after the clen positive

 

[Merckx index]

Agreed, a negative hairtest doesn't disprove the transfusion-hypothesis.
But think of it vice-versa: if AC is innocent, and if his beef-tale is correct, his hairtest must be negative. So I don't understand why he hasn't done a hairtest. Or has he?
To stand any chance at all, he needs to be able to show a negative hairtest, and as far as I know, he hasn't shown one yet.

It is an interesting point. Let's assume the worst case scenario, from Bert's POV. He was taking CB in June, after and maybe before the Dauphine, to lose weight. And he withdrew blood some time after the Dauphine, in preparation for transfusing during the TDF. (Remember, he skipped the Spanish National ITT, saying he was sick, IIRC).

He was informed of his CB positive in late August, which would be about two months after this hypothetical period when he was taking CB regularly. It was another month or so before the positive became known publicly. At any time during that period, a hair test could probably establish whether he had been taking CB in June. Right now, it's iffy. The hair test is usually considered valid for about three months after the fact, but of course it depends on the drug, amount taken, and detection limits. If he were taking it in season, between the Dauphine and the Tour, he was surely using very low doses. Maybe doses calibrated to give urine levels that he thought would be below the detection limits. Then again, the detection limits have now been pushed so low that it might still be detectable in hair.

All of this is by way of saying Bert didn't seem to have a lot to lose by taking a hair test. Unless he withdrew blood in June, he would almost certainly test negative during the period following his being informed of his positive, and even in that case, he could have waited a little longer. Surely he could have arranged to have his hair tested secretly, and if it were negative, publicly offer to take a hair test? Maybe, as someone has suggested here, he has taken the test and is for now sitting on the results. There are also ways of leaching out at least some of the drug trapped in a hair follicle, which I assume he would know or soon learn about. Certainly there are or have been some options here.

 

[hfer07]

Sadly Politics & Economic factors will determine the length of his punishment- if such measure is even taken. Maybe Christmas brought special gifts to those involved in the decision making-perhaps arraignments are being prepared for what Contador will face in February.

 

[veganrob]

Just a feeling but I don't think he will get any time, or very little. If UCI wanted him suspended it would have happened already. They don't want another doping case against the best rider in the peloton. And with the minute amount of clenbuterol in his system, which was insignificant to be of any benefit to his performance, it may make it easier to let him go.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

imo it's a low probability scenario.

more likely all of contador's samples featuring in the de boer's report (including the 2 days before the positive) were tested by cologne. the hint is in the time line of the alleged plasticizer test on the said days - the german tv station showed a graph claiming that contador's urine was tested by cologne for plasticizers on 3 days before, during and after the clen positive

Snake hurts cause his PED friend the pistol is out of bullets.

 

[Willy_Voet]

6 months including time already spent not racing at the end of the 2010 season. He'll be back in time for Paris-Nice.

 

[TERMINATOR]

terminator you listened to your own broken record too many times

cheers.

and whilst you listen to your own broken record one more time, care to bring links with proven veracity that wada indeed tested the meat and not just sent a chap to ask for certificates. and one more since you know what will happen, you could be a santa. happy holidays !

Do your own Googling next time. But the fact that you weren't aware of this means you are completely out of the loop.

Second, in a contamination case, the burden of proof is on Contador to show the meat was contaminated. His legal team failed to do this, and thinks he's going to come in to a CAS hearing with a story. A story is not proof.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-blow-to-contadors-tainted-meat-defence

 

[TERMINATOR]

Just a feeling but I don't think he will get any time, or very little. If UCI wanted him suspended it would have happened already. They don't want another doping case against the best rider in the peloton. And with the minute amount of clenbuterol in his system, which was insignificant to be of any benefit to his performance, it may make it easier to let him go.

The UCI doesn't determine the suspension under the rules. Please pay attention.

 

[Merckx index]

They have also passed on a study by the Veterinary Institute at Zagreb’s Faculty of Food Technology, published in the June edition of the magazine Meat Science, that details how long clenbuterol stays active after being injected into pigs. According to this study, a pig injected with clenbuterol and then slaughtered the next day would contain almost 5 nanograms of clenbuterol per gram, which is enough to deliver a reading 100 times greater than that found in Contador’s sample.

Well, no. Five ng is 100x the amount found per ml. of Bert's urine. This level in meat would result in a far lower level in urine. But it does make the point that detectable levels in urine can result from eating contaminated meat, in this case pork.

According to El País, WADA’s document also states: “Evidently, the cattle breeders who are breaking the rules don’t slaughter animals that have been illegally fattened up until 20 days have passed since the last dose of clenbuterol for two reasons: firstly to avoid being caught in controls carried out on meat and also to allow the anabolic steroid to have its full effect in fattening up the meat.

If animals slaughtered at that point have no detectable amounts of CB, why is it illegal? Don't tell me the lawmakers feel sorry for the cattle, obviously no one cares about the cattle. If anyone did, no one would eat beef, period. If you've seen how cattle are treated before let alone during slaughter, you're a vegetarian. And if there isn't enough CB in the meat to detect, it isn't a problem for humans. Hello?

The one window of opportunity Bert has IMO is that by rejecting the contamination theory, CAS has to argue that the CB got in his system by transfusion. As Python and numerous others have pointed out, that is the only other viable alternative. They can't weasel out of it by saying they don't care how it got into his system, because if they went to the trouble of testing the meat, they do care. So they have to come out and say he transfused. And certainly the press will. Yet they can't prove it directly unless they bring out the DEHP results, which so far no one seems to want to discuss. This will be interesting.

 

[python]

terminator, do you know how to use simple searches to back up own words ?

you claimed an absolute 'factual' knowledge of something

WADA has in fact done what Contador's legal people failed to do: test the meat. WADA's tests showed the meat came negative

There is a huge load here therefore i invited you to provide positive and verifiable sources of your ‘in fact’ knowledge. you also claimed that you know what wada will do.

so again the onus is on you to back up your own words. otherwise you not only ‘out of the loop’ but are conveying something you’d like to happen or in a simple speak just blathering.

me ? i think he transfused but i dont 'know' that, i only claim it's my hunch and i would like to see more proof of that.

 

[TERMINATOR]

The one window of opportunity Bert has IMO is that by rejecting the contamination theory, CAS has to argue that the CB got in his system by transfusion. As Python and numerous others have pointed out, that is the only other viable alternative. They can't weasel out of it by saying they don't care how it got into his system, because if they went to the trouble of testing the meat, they do care. So they have to come out and say he transfused. And certainly the press will. Yet they can't prove it directly unless they bring out the DEHP results, which so far no one seems to want to discuss. This will be interesting.

WADA doesn't have to prove how CB got into his body. All they have to do is prove he had it in his body (which is, to say, prove the validity of the analytical test). If you think the burden of proof is on WADA to show how it got into his body (i.e. transfusion), you have no understanding of the WADA Code.

Contador is the one who has to prove it was contamination. And he won't be able to do that.

 

[python]

WADA doesn't have to prove how CB got into his body. All they have to do is prove he had it in his body (which is, to say, prove the validity of the analytical test). If you think the burden of proof is on WADA to show how it got into his body (i.e. transfusion), you have no understanding of the WADA Code.

Contador is the one who has to prove it was contamination. And he won't be able to do that.

once again, you're trying to pass yourself as some kind of insider with in 'fact' knowledge and give people lectures on how things work but you fail visibly to even read what people write or even contradict your own 'knowledge'. you just claimed that you know in fact that wada tested the meat even though you are giving merckz index a lecture about failing 'to understand that wada does not have to prove'.

a word of advice, pay attention and assume that some people here know how wada code is supposed to work. otherwise, again, you are just blathering.

 

[sniper]

repeating again the previously posted and well discussed information.........

contador's legal team claimed that his defense will be based on the ovcharov's and gasquet's defense. both used hair follicle test to successfully convince the jury that they were not long-term users of the ped found in their body.

also theswordsman posted that one of contador's lawyers recommended that he take the test. so it would not be surprising he indeed had the test but did not feel the need to inform the public.

repeating again my previous post (though not so well discussed): a german news station reported yesterday (in some sports 2010 overview) about the otcharov case - how he was let off the hook in large part thanks to his negative hairtest - and then switched to Contador, noting he doesn't have a negative hairtest result, and hence will in all likeliness be unable to avoid suspension.
If I'm correct, this can mean three things: 1. He didn't do a hairtest (yet); 2. He did one but it came out positive; 3. He did one and it came out negative but for some reason doesn't feel the need to make it public.

Anyway, I was merely checking if anybody knew which one of the three it is.
And he really does need that negative hairtest.

 

[hrotha]

Personally I don't think a negative hair test proves anything, in Contador's or in Ovtcharov's case. Clen is not something you take for long-term treatments anyway, right?

 

[sniper]

What I know is that the hairtest is thought to have been pretty significant in Otcharov's case. And AC was recommended to do one as well by his lawyers, just that we haven't heard whether that has gone down already.

 

[personal]

About that study:

"They have also passed on a study by the Veterinary Institute at Zagreb’s Faculty of Food Technology, published in the June edition of the magazine Meat Science, that details how long clenbuterol stays active after being injected into pigs. According to this study, a pig injected with clenbuterol and then slaughtered the next day would contain almost 5 nanograms of clenbuterol per gram, which is enough to deliver a reading 100 times greater than that found in Contador’s sample. "

Study was conducted on Veterinary Institute AND Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology in Zagreb.
Here it is:

Meat science Volume 86, Issue 3, November 2010

 

[veganrob]

The UCI doesn't determine the suspension under the rules. Please pay attention.

No, UCI does not determine suspension, but since it appears that Pat McQuaid wanted all of this to go away without seeing light may have an influence.
Lighten up dud.

 

[TERMINATOR]

once again, you're trying to pass yourself as some kind of insider with in 'fact' knowledge and give people lectures on how things work but you fail visibly to even read what people write or even contradict your own 'knowledge'. you just claimed that you know in fact that wada tested the meat even though you are giving merckz index a lecture about failing 'to understand that wada does not have to prove'.

a word of advice, pay attention and assume that some people here know how wada code is supposed to work. otherwise, again, you are just blathering.

You failed to state what was wrong about my post. Contador is getting 2 years.

You clearly have no idea how the WADA Code works if you think the contaminated 'cut of meat' story is going to wash. Contador will be unable to show the meat he ate was contaminated. If he could do that, cyclingnews would have ran an article on it by now.