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

[TERMINATOR]

I know how the process is supposed to work. I am also not so naive as to believe it works that way all the time.
The UCI represents a product. It's purpose is to make money. In order to make they need to present a clean product that sponsors will want to pay big money for. No sponsors, no racing. A product tainted by drugs is not good. Riders are getting away with slaps on the wrist or less very often. Wake up. How is that true. Have you been reading other threads or just don't believe it?

Please get your head out of the sand

What's your point? The UCI has no say over Contador's guilt/innocence or sentence. That will be decided by CAS, just like the Landis case.

 

[BotanyBay]

What's your point? The UCI has no say over Contador's guilt/innocence or sentence. That will be decided by CAS, just like the Landis case.

Just because they have no official "say" does not mean that they can't influence (or even rig) the outcome.

There's the movie script for how things are supposed to work in life, and then there's the way they really are.

 

[bhilden]

Here is what I think the Spanish Cycling federation will do. They will give Contador a 1-year suspension since they aren't able to determine where the Clenbuterol came from, but there is a zero tolerance policy. The tricky bit here is that they will start the 1-year sanction the last day Contador raced in 2010. So while Contador won't be able to start next year's Tour de France, he will be able to start next year's Vuelta. All eyes will be on the Vuelta, something which hasn't happened in years.

 

[BotanyBay]

Here is what I think the Spanish Cycling federation will do. They will give Contador a 1-year suspension since they aren't able to determine where the Clenbuterol came from, but there is a zero tolerance policy. The tricky bit here is that they will start the 1-year sanction the last day Contador raced in 2010. So while Contador won't be able to start next year's Tour de France, he will be able to start next year's Vuelta. All eyes will be on the Vuelta, something which hasn't happened in years.

This is precisely what will happen, and AC will accept it.

And I'm willing to go one bit farther: AC will be welcomed to the 2012 TDF with open arms. This will be positioned as an example of "AC did nothing wrong, but we all stick to the rules 100%".

I predict no appeals, but a well orchestrated fix in regards to AC being subsequently treated as if there was never a real violation.

 

[lean mean &green]

Here is what I think the Spanish Cycling federation will do. They will give Contador a 1-year suspension since they aren't able to determine where the Clenbuterol came from, but there is a zero tolerance policy. The tricky bit here is that they will start the 1-year sanction the last day Contador raced in 2010. So while Contador won't be able to start next year's Tour de France, he will be able to start next year's Vuelta. All eyes will be on the Vuelta, something which hasn't happened in years.

This is precisely what will happen, and AC will accept it.

And I'm willing to go one bit farther: AC will be welcomed to the 2012 TDF with open arms. This will be positioned as an example of "AC did nothing wrong, but we all stick to the rules 100%".

I predict no appeals, but a well orchestrated fix in regards to AC being subsequently treated as if there was never a real violation.

i tend to agree with the two of you about the RFEC's decision but the thread is about what happens next. IOW, what happens when WADA is unsatisfied with this ruling and appeals to CAS? what is the end result?

the funny thing no one mentions is that autologous transfusions aren't a major issue in sports where athletes were shown leniency. if it goes to CAS, every angle will be dissected. i think he's looking at 2 years w/o very strong evidence of contamination.

 

[sniper]

i tend to agree with the two of you about the RFEC's decision but the thread is about what happens next. IOW, what happens when WADA is unsatisfied with this ruling and appeals to CAS? what is the end result?

the funny thing no one mentions is that autologous transfusions aren't a major issue in sports where athletes were shown leniency. if it goes to CAS, every angle will be dissected. i think he's looking at 2 years w/o very strong evidence of contamination.

plus, he will loose his 2010 TdF title, and the rumors of plasticizers won't fade that easily. Plus, parallel to this, there is the Novitzky-Armstrong case.
Dependant on what comes out (but it'll probably be nasty), there'll be loud cries for cleaning up cycling from outside as well as inside the UCI /(with external pressure from WADA).
What the consequences will be for AC is unclear, but to believe that he'll be warmly received back into the cycling-family, I doubt it.

 

[BroDeal]

fortunately for you i have to get off this useless task of educating you and do something i enjoy much more --cross-country skiing.

you lost all credibility with me and i hope i was able to show to others your incompetence and sloppiness. just to conclude, as i showed above you are wrong every time you open your mouth but pretending to lecture people. i hope the lesson was helpful.

This is TERMINATOR's usual technique. He thinks that if he asserts something boldy enough and flat out refuses to acknowledge any gray areas or ambiguity then people will have to believe him.

Now where have I seen this exact same style before? CF.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i tend to agree with the two of you about the RFEC's decision but the thread is about what happens next. IOW, what happens when WADA is unsatisfied with this ruling and appeals to CAS? what is the end result?

the funny thing no one mentions is that autologous transfusions aren't a major issue in sports where athletes were shown leniency. if it goes to CAS, every angle will be dissected. i think he's looking at 2 years w/o very strong evidence of contamination.

Again I would agree with what has been said regarding a 1 year suspension.
But I am not sure if that will be unsatisfactory to WADA.

Will it be worth the exposure and expense to take the case further? I think that decision will depend on the findings and reasons that come from the RFEC - because as I pointed out earlier, WADA took a case against Hardy to increase her 1 year ban but it was not granted, so there is already a precedent.

 

[BotanyBay]

i tend to agree with the two of you about the RFEC's decision but the thread is about what happens next. IOW, what happens when WADA is unsatisfied with this ruling and appeals to CAS? what is the end result?

I think even WADA is softening. I think they're beginning to choose their battles wisely, as this is (after all) politics, not sport.

I think the Spaniards would make a compelling argument that more than a few "ingestees" have been treated differently than "abusers". Now try and find the difference between the two.

If this were an EPO positive, I think WADA would go all the way. I'm not sure they really will here. I think their past statements were more to intimidate the Spanish into giving a 1-year, not an indication of an actual appeal.

 

[sniper]

I think even WADA is softening. I think they're beginning to choose their battles wisely, as this is (after all) politics, not sport.

I think the Spaniards would make a compelling argument that more than a few "ingestees" have been treated differently than "abusers". Now try and find the difference between the two.

If this were an EPO positive, I think WADA would go all the way. I'm not sure they really will here. I think their past statements were more to intimidate the Spanish into giving a 1-year, not an indication of an actual appeal.

Was the WADA meat testing only part of the intimidation?

 

[BotanyBay]

Was the WADA meat testing only part of the intimidation?

No, it was the message to Spain to get the hell on-board. Acquit and we'll see you in Geneva at CAS. Because everyone knows that that's what Spain was inclined to do. I don't see that kind of rhetoric anymore, and even AC has piped-down his statements.

I'm sure Spain would love to acquit, but I'm willing to bet that WADA and UCI would be happy to settle for 1 year with a backdated starting point.

That's my prediction, not my desire.

I know I've said that UCI is tossing AC under the bus, but only "sorta kinda" tossing him.

 

[Christian]

I think the ban will be one year:

RFEC will give no sanction at all, UCI/WADA will want 2 years, in the end they'll meet on middle ground.

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

Just because they have no official "say" does not mean that they can't influence (or even rig) the outcome.

There's the movie script for how things are supposed to work in life, and then there's the way they really are.

Please explain how the UCI can influence or rig the decisions of say an ADA like Spain's or the USADA or an arbitration hearing by the CAS?

I'm sorry. I don't see this as remotely plausible.

Unless you mean they can rig evidence that those independent authorities may use in their decision making processes?

 

[BotanyBay]

Please explain how the UCI can influence or rig the decisions of say an ADA like Spain's or the USADA or an arbitration hearing by the CAS?

with perhaps a little bit of

I'm sorry. I don't see this as remotely plausible.

Unless you mean they can rig evidence that those independent authorities may use in their decision making processes?

They can't... Scout's honor ;-)

 

[lean mean &green]

Again I would agree with what has been said regarding a 1 year suspension.
But I am not sure if that will be unsatisfactory to WADA.

Will it be worth the exposure and expense to take the case further? I think that decision will depend on the findings and reasons that come from the RFEC - because as I pointed out earlier, WADA took a case against Hardy to increase her 1 year ban but it was not granted, so there is already a precedent.

didn't Hardy have solid evidence of contamination - i thought they were able to test some of the contaminated supplement that had been left over? feel free to correct me on that, i may have my cases mixed up but don't feel like checking a the moment. if AC can't produce that kind of evidence (he probably can't), i'd expect them to push for two years.

there are two sides to the "is the expense worth it?" debate. IOW they may have a winnable high profile case that would send a powerful message making it increasingly worthwhile. i'm not going to pretend to know how this will go, IMO i think they're ready for a fight.

 

[lean mean &green]

I think even WADA is softening. I think they're beginning to choose their battles wisely, as this is (after all) politics, not sport.

I think the Spaniards would make a compelling argument that more than a few "ingestees" have been treated differently than "abusers". Now try and find the difference between the two.

If this were an EPO positive, I think WADA would go all the way. I'm not sure they really will here. I think their past statements were more to intimidate the Spanish into giving a 1-year, not an indication of an actual appeal.

i suppose the conversation has meandered a bit but i inferred from the original question that WADA would be the one pushing this to CAS. in this case WADA's full commitment is also implied. the real world probably looks a little different than this hypothetical of course. it is a fair question to ask how much of a commitment of WADA's resources are they willing to wager on this and how enthusiastically will they pursue an appeal etc.

i also now realize that some may have interpreted the original question to mean AC would appeal to CAS feeling his punishment was too severe. this scenario is not what i had in mind, mostly because it seems unlikely.

 

[Merckx index]

The idea is that blood can only be stored for so long before it becomes unusable. You can store it for months by centrifuging it, but then it wouldn't retain any traces of clen.

This is a good point. For those who don't know, long-term (i.e., more than a month or so) storage of blood requires separation of red cells from plasma, which are then stored separately frozen. It has been speculated that the elite riders, with access to the best resources, may use this method, because the alternative is to withdraw blood periodically during the racing season. Freezing blood in principle would allow a rider to withdraw blood one or more times during the offseason and save it for targeted transfusions during the season. As far as I know, though, there are no reliable reports confirming that any rider actually does this; someone may correct me on this.

Most of a drug like CB would be in the plasma. A portion of it would probably bind to red cells, but likely a fairly small fraction of the original amount in the bloodstream at the time of withdrawal. However, riders may use all or a portion of the plasma when they transfuse. All they need at a minimum is the red cells, which can be transfused with saline or some other artificial medium, but they might choose to use at least some of the plasma, as well. According to a source I consider reliable, when riders store withdrawn blood short-term for transfusion, more than half the plasma is removed. That is, if two units of blood were withdrawn, the red cells would be removed by centrifugation, then reconstituted with one unit or less of plasma for re-infusion. To re-emphasize, this is my understanding of what riders do when they withdraw blood for short-term storage, so my guess is they probably would do this for long-term storage as well.

So even if Bert did all his withdrawals in the offseason, many months before his hypothetical transfusion during the Tour, the blood might contain some CB. This is a point I had not thought of when I originally posted, hrotha's post reminded me of it. In fact, when the blood was withdrawn might not make much difference at all, except that upon long-term storage, CB may degrade somewhat. When the news of Bert's positive first broke, there was a some discussion on this forum about the long-term stability of CB, but I think the upshot was that no one really knows. From my experience as a lab scientist working with other substances, I would guess that CB stored in a frozen medium would probably be pretty stable. In fact, it would probably be more stable for a year frozen than a month refrigerated.

Anyway, the bottom line is that if Bert was taking CB when he withdrew blood for later transfusion, it probably would not much matter when that blood was withdrawn. Regardless of whether it was in the offseason, and stored frozen, or withdrawn as recently as after the DL in June, the plasma containing most of the CB would probably initially be separated from the red cells. Then upon re-infusion, the red cells would probably be reconstituted with some but not all of that CB containing plasma. (If a rider were really clever, he might realize this, and not use any of the plasma to reconstitute).

A little more on the hair test. The value of this test is its ability to determine if a drug was being taken during some period prior to when the test is actually conducted. If the detection sensitivity of the drug is good enough, it does not require that large amounts of the drug were taken over a long period of time. In principle even a one time, inadvertent consumption of CB, as from contaminated meat, might result in detection of CB in the hair. The idea is that from the amount present in hair it can be estimated how much CB was originally ingested, and in this manner distinguish from contamination and an intentional program of CB use.

So it's conceivable that a positive hair test, if the amount detected was very low, would not establish that Bert had been taking CB as part of a doping program. In fact, keep in mind that while the probability of eating CB-contaminated meat on any particular day, such as the rest day of the TDF, is remote, the odds go up somewhat for ingestion over a window of several months. Ingestion of CB at any time during this period might result in a positive hair test.

Now that CB can be detected at very low levels, it would be interesting to test the population at large to see if a significant number of people have positive hair tests. Just as levels of DEHP are found in virtually everyone, the same might be the case for CB.

 

[BotanyBay]

It is a fair question to ask how much of a commitment of WADA's resources are they willing to wager on this and how enthusiastically will they pursue an appeal etc.

I just think that "certain people" at IOC are probably getting some favors called in in recent weeks, and that the point of "how much is WADA willing to spend" will become moot. Someone will affect their resolve to "Go for it".

This matter will be settled through phone calls, not court rooms. Just my opinion.

 

[veganrob]

Any opinion that AC is registered for Murcia? I am not familiar with the process there.

 

[GatorGene]

... It wasn't handed down from a deity that 50 picograms of Clenbuterol in your urine means you were a cheater....

----------------

Um, 50 picograms could have started as more than 50 picograms. Maybe it was higher a few hours or days before, and is in the midst of being metabolized. Or maybe the more than 50 picograms was in the blood months previously, when significant training benefit was received, and only shows up now because the blood spent several months in a temperature-controlled plastic bag.

It's not the amount present at the time of detection that's crucial. What is crucial is the reasonable assumption that at some point prior to the sample being taken, the amount of dope was higher, and may very well have rendered a competitive advantage.

 

[lean mean &green]

This is a good point. For those who don't know, long-term (i.e., more than a month or so) storage of blood requires separation of red cells from plasma, which are then stored separately frozen. It has been speculated that the elite riders, with access to the best resources, may use this method, because the alternative is to withdraw blood periodically during the racing season. Freezing blood in principle would allow a rider to withdraw blood one or more times during the offseason and save it for targeted transfusions during the season. As far as I know, though, there are no reliable reports confirming that any rider actually does this; someone may correct me on this.

Most of a drug like CB would be in the plasma. A portion of it would probably bind to red cells, but likely a fairly small fraction of the original amount in the bloodstream at the time of withdrawal. However, riders may use all or a portion of the plasma when they transfuse. All they need at a minimum is the red cells, which can be transfused with saline or some other artificial medium, but they might choose to use at least some of the plasma, as well. According to a source I consider reliable, when riders store withdrawn blood short-term for transfusion, more than half the plasma is removed. That is, if two units of blood were withdrawn, the red cells would be removed by centrifugation, then reconstituted with one unit or less of plasma for re-infusion. To re-emphasize, this is my understanding of what riders do when they withdraw blood for short-term storage, so my guess is they probably would do this for long-term storage as well.

So even if Bert did all his withdrawals in the offseason, many months before his hypothetical transfusion during the Tour, the blood might contain some CB. This is a point I had not thought of when I originally posted, hrotha's post reminded me of it. In fact, when the blood was withdrawn might not make much difference at all, except that upon long-term storage, CB may degrade somewhat. When the news of Bert's positive first broke, there was a some discussion on this forum about the long-term stability of CB, but I think the upshot was that no one really knows. From my experience as a lab scientist working with other substances, I would guess that CB stored in a frozen medium would probably be pretty stable. In fact, it would probably be more stable for a year frozen than a month refrigerated.

Anyway, the bottom line is that if Bert was taking CB when he withdrew blood for later transfusion, it probably would not much matter when that blood was withdrawn. Regardless of whether it was in the offseason, and stored frozen, or withdrawn as recently as after the DL in June, the plasma containing most of the CB would probably initially be separated from the red cells. Then upon re-infusion, the red cells would probably be reconstituted with some but not all of that CB containing plasma. (If a rider were really clever, he might realize this, and not use any of the plasma to reconstitute).

A little more on the hair test. The value of this test is its ability to determine if a drug was being taken during some period prior to when the test is actually conducted. If the detection sensitivity of the drug is good enough, it does not require that large amounts of the drug were taken over a long period of time. In principle even a one time, inadvertent consumption of CB, as from contaminated meat, might result in detection of CB in the hair. The idea is that from the amount present in hair it can be estimated how much CB was originally ingested, and in this manner distinguish from contamination and an intentional program of CB use.

So it's conceivable that a positive hair test, if the amount detected was very low, would not establish that Bert had been taking CB as part of a doping program. In fact, keep in mind that while the probability of eating CB-contaminated meat on any particular day, such as the rest day of the TDF, is remote, the odds go up somewhat for ingestion over a window of several months. Ingestion of CB at any time during this period might result in a positive hair test.

Now that CB can be detected at very low levels, it would be interesting to test the population at large to see if a significant number of people have positive hair tests. Just as levels of DEHP are found in virtually everyone, the same might be the case for CB.

i doubt it. clen use is fairly common for weight loss/repartitioning and pretty uncommon in cattle that is about to be slaughtered.

seriously tho, it's use isn't that obscure. go to any site that sells anabolic steroids. they'll not only sell it to you but they'll tell you how to use it. AC used clen. he transfused it back in by mistake or at levels he thought were undetectable. contamination is a laughable excuse. feel free to keep digging on your own but you'll arrive back at this same place. the hair analysis is probably a dead end - without getting into specifics i doubt it would prove innocence or guilt, but more likely guilt.

since it's come up, my guess is that AC is both freezing blood collected out of season and making small withdraws during because he is so consistently competitive - taking clen b/t dauphine and TdF and doing withdraws? - that seems too reckless to me based upon what i know of clen use and it's detection, ie effective length/dosage of a clen cycle, it's relatively long half life, etc.

your chemistry background is a valuable asset to the forum, i hope you'll stick around.

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

with perhaps a little bit of

They can't... Scout's honor ;-)

so you're suggesting the UCI will throw a party for the arbitral tribunal of the CAS and also bribe them to get the result the UCI would like to see? I'm not sure you understand how this system works and the relationship the various institutions and agencies have with one another?

The UCI has little influence and no authority over the CAS nor the Spanish ADAs that will decide the outcome of this case.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

didn't Hardy have solid evidence of contamination - i thought they were able to test some of the contaminated supplement that had been left over? feel free to correct me on that, i may have my cases mixed up but don't feel like checking a the moment. if AC can't produce that kind of evidence (he probably can't), i'd expect them to push for two years.

there are two sides to the "is the expense worth it?" debate. IOW they may have a winnable high profile case that would send a powerful message making it increasingly worthwhile. i'm not going to pretend to know how this will go, IMO i think they're ready for a fight.

Thank you for that.

I haven't time to read the full judgment but reading page 30 on it looks as though she was able to prove the supplement she had taken was contaminated and she had shown due diligence by calling the manufacturer before she started taking it to ensure it did not contain a prohibited substance.

This appears to be very different from what we know (So far) of the AC case - so WADA may well appeal anything less than the full 2 year sanction.

 

[python]

snip
This appears to be very different from what we know (So far) of the AC case - so WADA may well appeal anything less than the full 2 year sanction.

hardy's case was indeed different from contador's case but there are some interesting moments and lessons to be noted:

(i) catlin through the full weight of his expertise, authority and his laboratory services to help her, all to have only one year reduction... says a lot about how tough and rigid is usada's adherence to wada code. not many nadas are like that. for example, the two most prominent german anti-doping scientists (schänzer and thieme) and the german nada also through their full weight behind ovcharov and...they got him acquitted. this leads to a second important point that's not fully appreciated...
(ii)... having a proof that an athlete inadvertently used a contaminated supplement could be pleasing to fans but in fact could be inferior to the defense based on contaminated food...because wada code treats the cases differently. which brings me to a third point
(iii)according to some sources, contador settled on contaminated meat theory (as opposed to contaminated supplement) rather quickly. in my mind it could mean two things, either he realized that it could be his only way to not getting any suspension or he knew that it could not be his supplements because they are pre-tested and certified for no contamination.

i suspect, there is huge amount of interesting details in contador's uci documentation package. not the least interesting is that the package is probably lacking the most important data - wada/uci analysis of contador's blood passport - the key to entertaining evidence if he had a transfusion. as i said already several times, contador's team may be (if it's a clean passport - does not mean he hasn't doped) plaing the card.

 

[sniper]

hardy's case was indeed different from contador's case but there are some interesting moments and lessons to be noted:

(i) catlin through the full weight of his expertise, authority and his laboratory services to help her, all to have only one year reduction... says a lot about how tough and rigid is usada's adherence to wada code. not many nadas are like that. for example, the two most prominent german anti-doping scientists (schänzer and thieme) and the german nada also through their full weight behind ovcharov and...they got him acquitted. this leads to a second important point that's not fully appreciated...
(ii)... having a proof that an athlete inadvertently used a contaminated supplement could be pleasing to fans but in fact could be inferior to the defense based on contaminated food...because wada code treats the cases differently. which brings me to a third point
(iii)according to some sources, contador settled on contaminated meat theory (as opposed to contaminated supplement) rather quickly. in my mind it could mean two things, either he realized that it could be his only way to not getting any suspension or he knew that it could not be his supplements because they are pre-tested and certified for no contamination.

i suspect, there is huge amount of interesting details in contador's uci documentation package. not the least interesting is that the package is probably lacking the most important data - wada/uci analysis of contador's blood passport - the key to entertaining evidence if he had a transfusion. as i said already several times, contador's team may be (if it's a clean passport - does not mean he hasn't doped) plaing the card.

sweet observations.
qs: After his positive for CB, did Contador ever publicly state that there was nothing wrong with his biological passport? I don't recall. Anyway, if he hasn't publicly stated that, an obvious reason could be that his passport did show suspect values.

EDIT: as somebody already suggested some days ago, any suspect values in AC's passport could also explain him having been targeted for extra Cologne testing