Riis: "if he is sanctioned it doesn't mean he is guilty [of doping]"

Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Riis: "if he is sanctioned it doesn't mean he is guilty [of doping]". Talk about keeping the omerta! Just reading this comment I question how Riis is allowed to be a DS.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Riis: "if he is sanctioned it doesn't mean he is guilty [of doping]". Talk about keeping the omerta! Just reading this comment I question how Riis is allowed to be a DS.
I think what he is saying is that the Spanish federation could find that he accidentally ingested and still sanction him since WADA's code is strict liability. At least that's how I understood him.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
I am most likely wrong then. Personally find it odd that he is at the training camp with his team.
I don't know why anyone even cares about what the corrupt Spanish federation's ruling is. Regardless of what their verdict is, the losing side will appeal to CAS and that decision won't come until June.

I really don't understand how people cannot know this, since it happens in every single big case.

Clentador is getting 2 years because he failed to prove the "cut of meat" he ate was contaminated and did not appear to even address the fact that his low concentration could have come from a blood transfusion. Cyclists hire some of the dumbest lawyers around.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
I don't know why anyone even cares about what the corrupt Spanish federation's ruling is. Regardless of what their verdict is, the losing side will appeal to CAS and that decision won't come until June.

I really don't understand how people cannot know this, since it happens in every single big case.

Clentador is getting 2 years because he failed to prove the "cut of meat" he ate was contaminated and did not appear to even address the fact that his low concentration could have come from a blood transfusion. Cyclists hire some of the dumbest lawyers around.
Still Contador and his sponsors are screwed because he will not be able to race until his ban comes through in June, right?
 
TERMINATOR said:
Clentador is getting 2 years because he failed to prove the "cut of meat" he ate was contaminated and did not appear to even address the fact that his low concentration could have come from a blood transfusion. Cyclists hire some of the dumbest lawyers around.
I don't think he will get any more than a year. He will probably get a lot less. The extremely low levels detected plus the clean results in the prior tests will be argued as proof that it was not the result of doping and that the drug could not have affected results. People can blather on about blood transfusions all they want, but there is no scientific proof that there was a transfusion.
 
BroDeal said:
People can blather on about blood transfusions all they want, but there is no scientific proof that there was a transfusion.
Thank you. Finally someone said it.

Why does it shock people that Contador may get off easy?

My prediction remains as follows-Contador will receive a nine month ban, retroactive from late August when he was provisionally suspended, he'll keep his Tour title and be eligible to ride the 2011 Tour.

The Clinic will be up in arms, but the UCI will not dispute the ruling.
 
Berzin said:
Thank you. Finally someone said it.

Why does it shock people that Contador may get off easy?

My prediction remains as follows-Contador will receive a nine month ban, retroactive from late August when he was provisionally suspended, he'll keep his Tour title and be eligible to ride the 2011 Tour.

The Clinic will be up in arms, but the UCI will not dispute the ruling.
Agreed on most points, but I just don't see how he'd get to keep his Tour title if he gets suspended for a test that was taken at the Tour, before it was over. That, despite any shady dealings behind the scenes or look at the hard evidence on offer, does not make any sense. If he's suspended for an infraction at an event, then his results from that event have to be nullified. I don't see any possible way around that.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
Riis: "if he is sanctioned it doesn't mean he is guilty [of doping]". Talk about keeping the omerta! Just reading this comment I question how Riis is allowed to be a DS.
Dontcha just love this sport?

The gift that keeps on giving.

Technically, though, Riis is correct. The sanction doesn't mean he is guilty of doping. The AAF has already done that.

The initials AC on the OP list already prove he is a lying cheater.

Who cares what the sanction proves or not.

Move on, move on.

Dave.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
BroDeal said:
I don't think he will get any more than a year. He will probably get a lot less. The extremely low levels detected plus the clean results in the prior tests will be argued as proof that it was not the result of doping and that the drug could not have affected results. People can blather on about blood transfusions all they want, but there is no scientific proof that there was a transfusion.
The fact is that he had Clen in his system. That is illegal. The plasticisers also are evident of a blood transfusion. Even people who aren't scientists know that clean results before and after tests do not indicate doping. FL's lawyers could of argued that there was no sign of testosterone before or after in any of his samples. Didn't help him "get off".
 
auscyclefan94 said:
The fact is that he had Clen in his system. That is illegal. The plasticisers also are evident of a blood transfusion. Even people who aren't scientists know that clean results before and after tests do not indicate doping. FL's lawyers could of argued that there was no sign of testosterone before or after in any of his samples. Didn't help him "get off".
The plasticizers are not evidence of anything. There is no certified test that uses them to prove anything.

Substances found at very small levels could be the result of a normal dose that has declined over many days, but in Contador has his previous days' tests to show that he never had anywhere near an effective dose in his system. The extremely low levels found are a good argument for contamination.

FLandis' case is in no way equivalent because he had an effective dose in his system.
 
flicker said:
Still Contador and his sponsors are screwed because he will not be able to race until his ban comes through in June, right?
whilst the valverde situation was a little different, I reckon this one will be the same. he'll race til he's slapped with his ban
i could be wrong though...
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
D-Queued said:
Dontcha just love this sport?

The initials AC on the OP list already prove he is a lying cheater.
AAC = Anthony Colom. And even then, "same as...OR NOTHING" is hardly an indictment.

This is actually a duplicate thread, as someone earlier called the Riis statement a sign of the apocalypse.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11442

What people are missing is that "guilty" for a lot of us mean that he cheated, or doped voluntarily, with Clenbuterol. Other athletes have had the governing bodies accept that the Clenbuterol wasn't in their system due to cheating, meaning they weren't guilty of actively doing anything. The woman swimmer had leftover supplements that didn't list it or anything banned on the ingredients, and they were able to test the contents and show it was contamination. The same was the case with meat from Mexico and China - there was no doping, or cheating involved. But athletes got banned anyway, meaning they were sanctioned even though they weren't guilty, and Riis is just saying that's a possibility here.

If the Spanish Federation says Contador is innocent, it's the end of that step of the process, and he's allowed to race because no one convicted him of anything. It's like Valverde this year. If WADA appeals the matter, which I expect, then he could be sanctioned later. Think of the situation like a TV crime show. If a guy is found not guilty, they don't haul him to jail while the other side appeals. He's free to do whatever he wants.

I realize I stepped into a thread with self-admitted Spain haters - I've seen Cadel compared to the "Spanish dopers" more than enough to last a lifetime. But as I've said so many other times in the clinic, this case is about a guy with an amount of a substance that's too small to be detected by most labs in the world. Plasticizers aren't involved in the case. Operacion Puerto isn't involved in the case.

WADA has a minimum threshold that their labs need to be able to detect Clenbuterol. There's a reason they set that as a threshold. Contador had one fortieth of that amount. I haven't seen it elsewhere, but the day Contador's lawyers turned over the paperwork, one was quoted as saying that labs aren't even required to report levels under 200 picograms. If that's the case, then the Cologne Lab took more than a month to give a test result even though they only had ten samples from the whole Tour, they broke the rules and leaked the positive to the German press, they broke the rules and leaked rumors of an unsanctioned plasticizer test, and they never even had to call it a positive in the first place. Yep, WADA is God.
 
I wish people would stop repeating that AC = Antoni Colom thing, since it's been rebutted many times (in the last month).

The initials 'AC' were found in a list of Liberty riders. Colom rode for Illes Balears.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
hrotha said:
I wish people would stop repeating that AC = Antoni Colom thing, since it's been rebutted many times (in the last month).

The initials 'AC' were found in a list of Liberty riders. Colom rode for Illes Balears.
+1

some don't like to be bothered by facts
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
BroDeal said:
The plasticizers are not evidence of anything. There is no certified test that uses them to prove anything.

Substances found at very small levels could be the result of a normal dose that has declined over many days, but in Contador has his previous days' tests to show that he never had anywhere near an effective dose in his system. The extremely low levels found are a good argument for contamination.

FLandis' case is in no way equivalent because he had an effective dose in his system.
Do you really believe it is the Clen? If you were on the other side of the fence, what would you say to try and prove Contador's guilt.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BroDeal said:
I don't think he will get any more than a year. He will probably get a lot less. The extremely low levels detected plus the clean results in the prior tests will be argued as proof that it was not the result of doping and that the drug could not have affected results. People can blather on about blood transfusions all they want, but there is no scientific proof that there was a transfusion.
Kindof sortof.

The Plasticizer test cannot be used as evidence - but when the UCI submitted documents to the RFEC they gave 4 scenario's as how to Clen was found which included blood transfusion, so it will be up for investigation.

Also we do not know if the zero Clen positives prior to July 21 were sent to Cologne, so that could be a mute point.
Berzin said:
Thank you. Finally someone said it.

Why does it shock people that Contador may get off easy?

My prediction remains as follows-Contador will receive a nine month ban, retroactive from late August when he was provisionally suspended, he'll keep his Tour title and be eligible to ride the 2011 Tour.

The Clinic will be up in arms, but the UCI will not dispute the ruling.
If Contador gets any sanction he is disqualified from the event he was riding - so he loses the Tour.
WADA & the UCI might accept a 1 year sanction (but not 9 months) - but do you really think Contador will?
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Auscyclefan, if you know anything about what a royal D*UCHEBAG Riis is, his comments should come as suprise to nobody.

I'd have no problem is the UCI lets Contador slide on Steakgate. As long as they finally make him do time for Puerto. Somewhere Valderde is knitting a sweatervest, and needs somebody to keep him company...
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Kindof sortof.

The Plasticizer test cannot be used as evidence - but when the UCI submitted documents to the RFEC they gave 4 scenario's as how to Clen was found which included blood transfusion, so it will be up for investigation.

Also we do not know if the zero Clen positives prior to July 21 were sent to Cologne, so that could be a mute point.


If Contador gets any sanction he is disqualified from the event he was riding - so he loses the Tour.
WADA & the UCI might accept a 1 year sanction (but not 9 months) - but do you really think Contador will?
some might even call it a moot point
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,257
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Riis: "if he is sanctioned it doesn't mean he is guilty [of doping]". Talk about keeping the omerta! Just reading this comment I question how Riis is allowed to be a DS.
Please....

He's just stating an obvious fact.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Magnus said:
Please....

He's just stating an obvious fact.
Riis said "guilty", rather than "guilty of doping", so it's by no means an obvious fact.

Rather, he's distorting the facts, cuz it should be the other way round:
if AC's not sanctioned, this doesn't mean he's not guilty.

the CLEN was there, A and B samples, and UCI/WADA regulations cleary state that, whatever the source was, it's the rider's responsability to assure it doesn't enter his body. Therefore: AC = guilty, even if not sanctioned.

(which is not to say that I'm a fan of such black&white, absolute definitions of guilt(y), on the contrary, but ok, that's a different matter)
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,257
0
0
sniper said:
Riis said "guilty", rather than "guilty of doping", so it's by no means an obvious fact.

Rather, he's distorting the facts, cuz it should be the other way round:
if AC's not sanctioned, this doesn't mean he's not guilty.

the CLEN was there, A and B samples, and UCI/WADA regulations cleary state that, whatever the source was, it's the rider's responsability to assure it doesn't enter his body. Therefore: AC = guilty, even if not sanctioned.

(which is not to say that I'm a fan of such black&white, absolute definitions of guilt(y), on the contrary, but ok, that's a different matter)
Yes. Riis said guilty. But the word guilty in itself means nothing. It has to be combined with something like "of testing positive of Clenbuterol" or "intentionally taking Clenbuterol".

I'm pretty sure the UCI/WADA regulations distinguish between willfully/intentional doping and poisoning.

Edit:
Just looked up the original quote (from equipe.fr):

"Si une sanction venait à tomber, ça ne voudrait pas dire pour autant qu'il est coupable. C'est une nuance importante."

I think 'coupable' should be translated responsible and not guilty. Besides it seems the 'pour autant' part was lost in translation.

Besides, the added "C'est une nuance importante" makes it clear (in my mind) that the correct interpretation is "guilty of intentionally taking Clenbuterol" and not "Guilty of testing positive of Clenbuterol".
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
hrotha said:
I wish people would stop repeating that AC = Antoni Colom thing, since it's been rebutted many times (in the last month).

The initials 'AC' were found in a list of Liberty riders. Colom rode for Illes Balears.
One thing I find strange though. On that paper it said nothing or the same as JJ. Wouldn't Fuentes know who his customers were? Or who wrote that paper?
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
BroDeal said:
The plasticizers are not evidence of anything. There is no certified test that uses them to prove anything.

Substances found at very small levels could be the result of a normal dose that has declined over many days, but in Contador has his previous days' tests to show that he never had anywhere near an effective dose in his system. The extremely low levels found are a good argument for contamination.

FLandis' case is in no way equivalent because he had an effective dose in his system.
So you believe he was clean then?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS