RFEC Frees Clentador

[brianf7]

He is inocent untill they proove him guilty the UCI must prove that he has doped and eliminate all excuses its such a small amount it could have many different defences and if the UCI get it wrong it will break them Contadore is no small fish.
He has money and can put up a big expencive fight even if he dosnt win it will cost the UCI millions just preparing the case and all the appeals that follow..

So get absolute proof first then if he is guilty then stick it to him.otherwise leave him alone.

 

[TERMINATOR]

The Valverde case was pretty atypical. I don't remember all of the details, but I think the disciplinary activity was initiated by CONI, and involved a ban from racing in Italy only. When his case went to CAS, UCI and WADA joined in an sought to have the ban extended to all international events, which CAS upheld.

No such thing as a ban under the WADA Code that only applies to 1 country. I've never heard of that before in my life and this appeal's outcome was never in question. According to you, Clentador would only be suspended in France, just like Valverde was only suspended in Italy.

 

[TERMINATOR]

I think you may have misread Articles 235 - 248. These look like the rules under which Clentador was provisionally suspended, and he can't compete while case is pending, unless he requests to have the provisional suspension lifted.

It is you who misread Article 235.

Provisional Suspension
235. If analysis of an A Sample has resulted in an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Prohibited Substance that is not a Specified Substance or for a Prohibited Method, and a review in accordance with article 204 does not reveal an applicable TUE or departure from the International Standard for Testing or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, the Rider shall be Provisionally Suspended pending the hearing panel’s determination of whether he has committed
an anti-doping rule violation.

Comment: Provisional Suspension shall apply under these Anti-Doping Rules including for Adverse Analytical Findings resulting from Testing by other Anti-Doping Organizations and for the results management of which the UCI is not responsible.

-----

In this case, the UCI is responsible, so the entire section of provisional suspension is not applicable to Clentador's case.

 

[HoustonHammer]

It is you who misread Article 235.

Provisional Suspension
235. If analysis of an A Sample has resulted in an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Prohibited Substance that is not a Specified Substance or for a Prohibited Method, and a review in accordance with article 204 does not reveal an applicable TUE or departure from the International Standard for Testing or the International Standard for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, the Rider shall be Provisionally Suspended pending the hearing panel’s determination of whether he has committed
an anti-doping rule violation.

Comment: Provisional Suspension shall apply under these Anti-Doping Rules including for Adverse Analytical Findings resulting from Testing by other Anti-Doping Organizations and for the results management of which the UCI is not responsible.

-----

In this case, the UCI is responsible, so the entire section of provisional suspension is not applicable to Clentador's case.

Clenbuterol is a Prohibited Substance that is not a Specified Substance. And we know that in the AC case, the two elements of the Article 204 review were satisfied, or UCI would not have tested the B sample. Therefore this Article does apply, and it's the process UCI used to impose the provisional suspension.

All the comment means is that these rules still apply, even in a case where another anti-doping body is doing the testing and UCI is doing the results management.

 

[HoustonHammer]

No such thing as a ban under the WADA Code that only applies to 1 country. I've never heard of that before in my life and this appeal's outcome was never in question. According to you, Clentador would only be suspended in France, just like Valverde was only suspended in Italy.

I don't know specifically what CONI did to prevent Valverde competing in Italy. However, I do know that their authority is limited to Italian events and riders competing on Italian racing licenses.

I have never said that AC would only be suspended in France. His case is being reviewed by UCI, which as we all know is an international body.

 

[M Sport]

A few questions-

1) Who is it that has the overall authority to suspend Contador?

Is it WADA, the UCI, or the Spanish Cycling Federation?

2) Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the plasticizers issue cannot be legally utilized by WADA to prove a case of blood doping because the test isn't WADA-approved, no?

3) Given this, the issue of the plasticizers is mentioned in the suspension verdict, can the ruling be challenged in court?

1. RFEC will conduct the hearing and suspend (or not) as required. UCI and WADA can appeal to CAS if not satisfied with the suspension/penalty.

2. correct. 3. it wasn't mentioned in the temporary suspension release, it was leaked by an outside agency.

 

[jae2460]

oh they didn't invite him because he's clean, they invited him for the whole Australian history of it being an island of convicts, so who would you pick to promote racing in such a place? the next guy whose going to be one

you wait and see he'll be bigger than Ned Kelly.....maybe giro can do a one off helmet like Ned Kelly for the Uniballer

Hey Moron #1 (Benotti69) and Moron#2 (Hog), can we have one f**ing thread that doesn't have the word "Armstrong" in it? You're worse than Greg Lemond. In 20 years, are you still going to be posting about him? There are other riders, who haven't retired, who are relevant to this thread.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Well, acf94, aren't you condemning the man without a trial? And I don't think you are the only one. Out of all the doping cases that have come up in the last few years (that I can think of), this one has the weakest evidence and the highest possibility of actually being what AC says. In spite of the tag line used elsewhere around here, clenbuterol poisoning cases are in the news. Spain seems to have more of a problem with that than other EU countries. Now they've busted some clen ring (mostly doping horses and CATTLE) - recent history, current events.


Although, we could go all paranoid, and think that maybe, just maybe, some Spanish politician had known about this clen ring, and they "pulled it out of their pocket" just to help the AC case, ya?

But, the plastics test seems to be very beta in development - so it seems to me we're getting a strong dose of FUD with our morning coffee, here.


Maybe I'm a softie, but I'd like to see UCI/WADA etc finish their work before I start dissing them.

Of course, don't let any of this stop any of you guys - I think it's fun reading some of this outrageous stuff! I mean, BoB is better, but you gotta take a break from the finer things in life sometime, right?

hardly condemning the guy. I would be a little less forthright about the issue if the guy hadn't been involved in puerto (even if he was cleared). Even though I have followed this sport for 7 years, I have watched it long enough to not see the writing on the wall.

To answer your question indurain666? Of course i would!

 

[TERMINATOR]

I don't know specifically what CONI did to prevent Valverde competing in Italy. However, I do know that their authority is limited to Italian events and riders competing on Italian racing licenses.

I have never said that AC would only be suspended in France. His case is being reviewed by UCI, which as we all know is an international body.

Entry to UCI races is governed by the UCI, not CONI. Sounds like you need to read the rulebook.

Your statement that you "know that their [CONI] authority is limited to Italian events and riders competing on Italian racing licenses"...doesn't comport with the fact that they did in fact suspend Valverde for 2 years and he is not an Italian rider.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Entry to UCI races is governed by the UCI, not CONI. Sounds like you need to read the rulebook.

Your statement that you "know that their [CONI] authority is limited to Italian events and riders competing on Italian racing licenses"...doesn't comport with the fact that they did in fact suspend Valverde for 2 years and he is not an Italian rider.

It very much comports with the facts in that they suspended him from Italian events.

 

[HoustonHammer]

Entry to UCI races is governed by the UCI, not CONI. Sounds like you need to read the rulebook.

Your statement that you "know that their [CONI] authority is limited to Italian events and riders competing on Italian racing licenses"...doesn't comport with the fact that they did in fact suspend Valverde for 2 years and he is not an Italian rider.

Again, CONI's authority with respect to cycling is limited to Italian riders and Italian events. Which means of course that they can ban a foreign rider from participating in Italian events for doping.

This excerpt from CAS's final decision on Valverde explains what happened:

2.20. On 11 May 2009, the hearing against Mr Valverde in the CONI matter took place in Rome before the Italian Tribunale Nazionale Antidoping ("TNA").

2.21. WADA and the UCI were parties to these proceedings, as permitted by the applicable CONI Anti-doping Rules.

2.22. On 11 May 2009, the TNA issued its dispostif, with reasons to follow. The TNA ruled that Mr Valverde had committed, among other anti-doping rule violations, a violation of Article 2.2 of the WADC which pertains to "Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method." As a result, Mr Valverde was banned for two-years from participating in or attending athletic events organized under the auspices of CONI or related national sport organizations in Italy.

 

[Special_oz_ed]

AC and Plasticisers

A few questions-

1) Who is it that has the overall authority to suspend Contador?

Is it WADA, the UCI, or the Spanish Cycling Federation?

2) Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the plasticizers issue cannot be legally utilized by WADA to prove a case of blood doping because the test isn't WADA-approved, no?

3) Given this, the issue of the plasticizers is mentioned in the suspension verdict, can the ruling be challenged in court?

Two things:
i. the plasticiser test hasn't been approved yet as a test for blood doping. And rightly so. As an ex-chemist, there appears to be a bit of wiggle-room in Segura's methodology that means the plasticiser test isn't as water-tight a proof of blood doping as many suspect. Segura admits as much in his published work on the subject. I think the UCI will find it very difficult to make a case around the plasticisers - the levels are a little higher than the average levels of the normal population, but AC may be able to explain levels by identifying any number of DEHP-containing plastic products he may have been exposed to prior to or during the rest day on tour (DEHP is really ubiquitous!).

ii. I wonder if the UCI might be waiting until the plasticiser test is approved? Though I suspect there might be a challenge in applying it retrospectively.