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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Altitude said:
So you believe he was clean then?
Can you find anything that I wrote that says that I think Contador is clean?? It is not a trick question. Keep in mind that I am not some Armstrong loving dork who is stupid enough to believe that he was clean at any point since he left his teens (or even before that point).
 
listen guys, if Contador is cleared would you believe he was clean?

It seems you believe in justice only when someone is found guilty, not when someone is cleared.

It seems you guys have si much trust in justice. But only when you get what you want. I don't trust in justice so...
 
Altitude said:
Only suggestions that it is very likely.
Your Armstrong fetish is apparently interfering with your normal brain function, and it has spread to the reading comprehension center of your brain. The only thing I wrote concerned the details of Contador's case and how I think things will play out. I wrote nothing there about my opinion of whether Contador is guilty or not.

Given Contador's history, someone would have to have sailboat fuel as brains to believe that Contador has been racing clean.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
BroDeal said:
Your Armstrong fetish is apparently interfering with your normal brain function, and it has spread to the reading comprehension center of your brain. The only thing I wrote concerned the details of Contador's case and how I think things will play out. I wrote nothing there about my opinion of whether Contador is guilty or not.

Given Contador's history, someone would have to be as ignorant as the typical Armstrong fan to believe that Contador has been racing clean.
What Armstrong fetish do you speak of? Anyhow I simply asked a question which evidently you interpreted as some sort of attack. You listed reasons suggesting that contamination was plausible, did you not? Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.
 
Altitude said:
What Armstrong fetish do you speak of? Anyhow I simply asked a question which evidently you interpreted as some sort of attack. You listed reasons suggesting that contamination was plausible, did you not? Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.
I don't have a problem believing that Contador is a doper even though he has some decent arguments for beating this case. Sophisticated thought and all that. Try it sometime. The world becomes a lot more interesting.

If I were his lawyer one of the rhetorical lines of attack that I would make is that the essence of sport is fair competition. Ostensibly it is the reason that we have rules against doping in the first place. Subjecting one rider's samples to a test that is much more sensitive than the other riders' samples violates the principle of fair competition.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
BroDeal said:
I don't have a problem believing that Contador is a doper even though he has some decent arguments for beating this case. Sophisticated thought and all that. Try it sometime. The world becomes a lot more interesting.

If I were his lawyer one of the rhetorical lines of attack that I would make is that the essence of sport is fair competition. Ostensibly it is the reason that we have rules against doping in the first place. Subjecting one rider's samples to a test that is much more sensitive than the other riders' samples violates the principle of fair competition.
Perhaps you should be representing him.

Where do I get some of this sophisticated thought stuff?
 
Apr 9, 2009
1,916
0
0
D-Queued said:
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.
AC from OP could have been Angel Casero. Not that I really believe that or care much either way, I'm just sayin'.

Really I think the main problem here is people trying to find justice or consistency where they aren't going to find any. We've got a corrupt Spanish cycling organization, a corrupt UCI, corrupt DS'es, and drug fiend riders. Ambiguity and chaos is bound to be the only guaranteed result out of these ambiguous drug cases and that's just how it is with no forseeable path to getting better anytime soon.
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
BroDeal said:
Subjecting one rider's samples to a test that is much more sensitive than the other riders' samples violates the principle of fair competition.
That made me laugh. :)

Nice joke ;)
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
biopass said:
That made me laugh. :)

Nice joke ;)
Still it is realistic thinking from Brodeal's part. he's just spelling out how things may go down when the case goes to CAS, i.e. which cards AC's team may be putting on the table.
 
biopass said:
That made me laugh. :)

Nice joke ;)
I think it is a nice rhetorical argument--note the word rhetorical--to make. It may not be strictly within the rules, but when Contador's lawyer is looking for as many arguments as possible to sway the arbitrators, it could be one more reason for them make a decision in Contador's favor.

It brings up the question of whose samples were subjected to the extra sensitive test and whose were not. Were Andy Schleck's samples tested like that? It appears that nearly all the extra sensitive testing was done on Contador's samples. The basic argument boils down to is it fair that one athlete is repeatedly tested at a level forty times below the minimum standard while his competitors are tested at a radically different standard.

His lawyers should be looking how such an argument might be used with labor protection laws in a civil suit. The threat of such a suit would be an additional reason for the Spanish fed to roll over.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BroDeal said:
I think it is a nice rhetorical argument--note the word rhetorical--to make. It may not be strictly within the rules, but when Contador's lawyer is looking for as many arguments as possible to sway the arbitrators, it could be one more reason for them make a decision in Contador's favor.

It brings up the question of whose samples were subjected to the extra sensitive test and whose were not. Were Andy Schleck's samples tested like that? It appears that nearly all the extra sensitive testing was done on Contador's samples. The basic argument boils down to is it fair that one athlete is repeatedly tested at a level forty times below the minimum standard while his competitors are tested at a radically different standard.

His lawyers should be looking how such an argument might be used with labor protection laws in a civil suit. The threat of such a suit would be an additional reason for the Spanish fed to roll over.
To the highlighted - where does it appear that nearly all samples belonged to AC? I have read the IO report and there is no way to assume that.

To your rhetorical question :) - interesting but ultimatley "fair competition" is in sports, not in the anti-doping rules, where athletes agree to OOC and other types of controls.

Although I agree that ACs lawyers will probably go the 'Valverde' route and argue over every dot and comma.
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
BroDeal said:
It brings up the question of whose samples were subjected to the extra sensitive test and whose were not.
If Contador names others, riders whom he knows will fail the same sensitive testing, then maybe he will get a reduced sentence. But then again, such statement will propably be treated as if he was admitting doping.

BroDeal said:
The basic argument boils down to is it fair that one athlete is repeatedly tested at a level forty times below the minimum standard while his competitors are tested at a radically different standard.
Thats another problem with the statement. There is no such thing as a minimum standard testlevel where its illegal to do testing below that level.
 
biopass said:
Thats another problem with the statement. There is no such thing as a minimum standard testlevel where its illegal to do testing below that level.
Sure there is. There is a minimum level of Clenbuterol that a WADA certified lab is required to detect. Cologne is detecting levels far below that limit. Hence an argument that different athletes in the same competition are being subjected to different standards.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Eurosport's Blazin Saddles in topform:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blog/blazin-saddles/article/1388/


Bertie remains confident the case against him will be dismissed. L'Equipe says he is planning to ride all three Grand Tours next year, while his lawyer is bullish.
"Not one of the scientists we have worked with has said it couldn't have been anything but contamination," he said. It's a robust defence, to be sure, but it raises the question: which scientists have you worked with? And equally pertinently: which ones have you not?

If the answer to the first question is Doctor Frankenstein, Doctor Ferrari or the indie-rock band We Are Scientists, then you're walking a fine line.

Rumour has it Contador's lawyer is basing his case on the Gasquet defence - so named after the French tennis player who tested positive for cocaine but was cleared after he claimed the substance entered his body when he kissed a girl who had consumed the drug.

Whether or not Contador's defence goes as far as to suggest the Spaniard enjoyed a bovine snog on the Tour's second rest day has yet to be clarified.

There is one rather worrying picture of Riis shoehorned into a wetsuit (and looking like a grown-up Bobby Hill from cartoon King of the Hill) and another priceless image of some of the team watching as a naked lady of a certain age walks by. Go seek.

Back to Contador's hair problem, Saddles heard it said this week that Andy Schleck is also losing hair due to stressing over his friend. Some sources even claim Schleck is threatening to retire himself if Contador calls it a day.
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
BroDeal said:
Sure there is. There is a minimum level of Clenbuterol that a WADA certified lab is required to detect. Cologne is detecting levels far below that limit. Hence an argument that different athletes in the same competition are being subjected to different standards.
Youre a funny guy. Do you know that? ;)

You actually make it sound bad that there is progress in the war against doping :)
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
BroDeal said:
Hence an argument that different athletes in the same competition are being subjected to different standards.
If we were to follow your idea of fair play, then every one should be riding the same bikes, eat the same food and train the same way. Otherwise it will not be fair play.
 
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".
what plasticisers? that has not been confirmed
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
biopass said:
If we were to follow your idea of fair play, then every one should be riding the same bikes, eat the same food and train the same way. Otherwise it will not be fair play.
as far as I get it, brodeal is merely spelling out to you the cards AC's camp might be putting on the table. It's not about whether it's brodeal's own idea of fair play or not.
It's an interesting piece of argumentation, one way or the other.
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
sniper said:
as far as I get it, brodeal is merely spelling out to you the cards AC's camp might be putting on the table.
And I´m just spelling out how the judge will react.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
theswordsman said:
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.
...and you don't seem to have a clue as to what that reason is. WADA sets this lower threshold in order to make sure the lab is accurate enough to be accredited. accreditation is an endorsement that says the lab is capable or good enough. if the lab cannot test to this level they cannot be used. if they are accurate below this level even better. it has nothing to do with principle or theory. no threshold means NO threshold whether you like it or not.
 
lean said:
...and you don't seem to have a clue as to what that reason is. WADA sets this lower threshold is in order to make sure the lab is accurate enough to be accredited. accreditation is an endorsement that says the lab is capable or good enough. if the lab cannot test to this level they cannot be used. if they are accurate below this level even better. it has nothing to do with principle or theory. no threshold means NO threshold whether you like it or not.
Exactly. My only problem with WADA is that, at least as it relates to a single event (multi-day races; GTs), they should use the same lab throughout so that all of the riders are treated equally, or at a minimum, make sure that advances in techniques in one lab are shared with all of the other labs to ensure that a positive at one lab is a positive at ALL WADA accredited labs.
 
biopass said:
And I´m just spelling out how the judge will react.
And not doing a very good job of it. I cannot see an arbitrator, a Spanish arbitrator that is, being comforted by the idea that since riders use different bikes it is okay for them to be tested at different sensitivities. In fact a positive at one lab may not be a positive at another lab. Whether a sample tests positive or not can be due to which lab a sample was selected to do the testing. That selection is made by the UCI, an organization run by a well known bigot who not only supported Apartheid in South Africa but in recent years made public comments about the superiority of Anglo-Saxon culture. Amigos, I put to you that the UCI may have conspired to send our Contador's samples to the Cologne lab to bring down a Spanish hero. Fair is fair. If the UCI ain't fit, you must acquit.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Publicus said:
Exactly. My only problem with WADA is that, at least as it relates to a single event (multi-day races; GTs), they should use the same lab throughout so that all of the riders are treated equally, or at a minimum, make sure that advances in techniques in one lab are shared with all of the other labs to ensure that a positive at one lab is a positive at ALL WADA accredited labs.
this new angle is a dead end. the burden is upon the athlete. they can keep themselves out of trouble by...drum roll please....not doping. in other words, law enforcement won't perform expensive DNA analysis to chase down the guy who has stolen your 10 year old vehicle. they might incur those costs to solve a kidnapping or a murder tho. investigators apply some judgement because they don't have unlimited resources. being pursued more vigorously doesn't make you less guilty.

WADA*, or in reality the UCI/AFLD, can send samples wherever they want. it's safe to assume deeper analysis of samples is more costly. high priority cases should go to whatever (accredited) lab they're willing to send them to. it's a practical matter of targeting and allocating resources. from now on, tour leaders can expect more rigorous testing standards and that's a very good thing. solution: don't cheat, especially if you plan on winning the biggest race on the calendar.

* - some, especially the swordsman, are confused about the actual purpose for WADA's existence or their role in this. WADA creates standards and essentially only provides a stamp of approval. the same way they apply their stamp to a lab they also apply it to a particular sport (aka a stakeholder). they establish a code consisting of a prohibited substance list and sanctioning guidelines. that's about it. they don't pay for testing, they don't run labs, they don't profit from positive or negative tests, and they don't sanction athletes. if a sport's governing body wants credibility they simply adhere to WADA's rules. if the UCI or national federation doesn't play by the agreed upon rules, WADA will object. in other words, if the spanish fed doesn't sanction contador, it goes against WADA's code and they are required to appeal to CAS. if they didn't act in this way and fulfill their obligation as an anti-doping watchdog they would lose credibility, the sporting results would lose credibility, and WADA would serve no useful purpose to anyone. quite simple really, they're doing what they're supposed to do.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY