Should Contador retain his 2010 Tour Victory

Should Contador remain the 2010 Tour De France Victor?

  • Other (can there really be another option?)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well should he?

The argument for: He wasnt banned for anything performance enhancing. He did not win the tour because of clenbuterol.

The argument against: the test was during the tour, therefore loses the tour.
 
Aug 4, 2009
286
0
0
I voted for no 2010 champion.

The UCI stance that Contador could lose his tour victory but Saxobank would retain the ranking points earned is bizarre.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
let him keep it, but ban him for the rest of his life.
as Kimmage said, this guy has really been insulting our intelligence.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Contadar should certainly lose his victory. I'd prefer the 2010 Tour would have no winner, unless you're wearing the yellow jersey on the Champs Elysees, you haven't really won.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
hrotha said:
The rules are clear. Contador has to be DQed and Andy gets the victory (le sigh).
*Looks at Giro results last few years*

Rules apparently aren't clear.

For me 2 things will be ok. Either Contador keeps his win or no one gets it. If you're going to assume Contador blood doped without real evidence then there's no problem in assuming AS is a doper and denying him the win. And since the clen he took didn't boost his performance during the Tour the only reason you're taking it away is because of blood doping.

A killer is a killer and a rapist is a rapist. But we're not going to call a killer a rapist :)
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,257
0
0
The Hitch said:
No winner in 2010, no winner in 2006, shaky 2008 and 07 Tdfs.
I'd say the 2008 winner is the least shaky(clinic-wise) since (at least) 1990.

Edit: @op: Isn't there rules for this kind of things?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Magnus said:
Edit: @op: Isn't there rules for this kind of things?
there are rules for everything but weve seen many times there is also the word "interpretation" to take into account. ;)
 
Dec 21, 2010
149
0
0
Voted for No, no 2010 winner, show 2nd down.

Mainly because we saw the drama that went around with Landis and Pereiro, do we really want a massive drawn out fight over the jersey that if 2006 is anything to go by, we don't have a recognised reigning champion by the next years TdF?

Of course he should lose the title, he tested positive during the tour, for something that regardless of the levels found is a ban-able substance, even if the Clen itself won't win him the Tour, a) it's a substance used to help improve strength and form, and b) WADA state that an athelte is responsible for what goes into your body. Bertie clearly wasn't, end of story.

Look at Rui Costa, proved it was contaminated supplements, still gets one year ban. Berties got a fair suspension if it is contamination, if UCI/WADA think they can prove otherwise, off to CAS we go.
 
Oct 1, 2010
320
0
0
1. If he's guilty of taking PEDs and the failed test occured on a rest day during the Tour, he should be banned for the minimum 2 year period and lose his Tour title. Andy Schleck should be awarded the Tour title by default.

2. If he's not guilty of taking PEDs by whatever technicality or mitigating circumstances, then no ban and he keeps the Tour title.

3. If only the rules were clear and definitive on this...
 
Jun 28, 2009
218
0
0
I voted for AC to lose TdF title and to not promote AS to 1st place.

Agree with other posters that rules should be applied and not interpreted since he is responsible for what is detected in his body. Thus, he should not have eaten the steak his friend provided and stuck to the team diet (I always request that my friends bring me a steak when visiting, especially if I am in a different country ;)). Maybe the clen did not affect his performance directly on that day or over the 3 weeks, but it could have led to his overall fitness and contributed to his winning ways. So, it could have affected his performance - I just contradicted myself :D
 
Jun 29, 2010
139
0
0
He should be stripped of the title, and no winner that year. Irrespective of the way you look at it the real looser (IMO) are people like Evans that are clean but live in the shadows.It's not just the title, it's also the endorsements and money. If you promote second to the title a few years down the track, they will never get those benefits.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
It is OVER

Who cares? It's over and done with!

Let ASO do whatever they want. My interest in the race terminated sometime during that stupid processional into Paris.

Ending that stupid last day processional is something to care about!
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
TeamSkyFans said:
there are rules for everything but weve seen many times there is also the word "interpretation" to take into account. ;)
Not for being disqualified from the event where you tested positive:
UCI Anti-doping Rules. Chapter X SANCTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES.

If you are referring to the length of his sentence then again their are different rules depending on if AC had 'No (Significant) Fault or Negligence' - unfortunately unless the RFEC release the full details of how they came to their decision we do not know what evidence or argument Contador use.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MarkvW said:
Who cares? It's over and done with!

Let ASO do whatever they want. My interest in the race terminated sometime during that stupid processional into Paris.

Ending that stupid last day processional is something to care about!
From somebody whos been to paris six times I would disagree. The chance to cheer on ALL the riders who complete the tour is a great occasion. Even if it was reduced to a shambles this year by someones antics.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
He finished le Tour in the shortest time - so he is the winner.

Difference to rivals is that he was caught and that Cologne-lab was so accurate.
 
Jul 15, 2009
284
0
0
Yes. He should be banned for returning a non-negative test for a substance that does not belong and has no cutoff amount, but it cannot be argued that this substance was in no way helpful to his victory.
Therefor it is easy to conclude that he did indeed win it, theoretically speaking. At least for me, he did.
 
While I'm all but certain he was on a similar program, I choose B: declare Schlekette the winner, simply because that is most in line with the rules.

The other choice would be "no winner". I almost chose that, and if there were no rule already in place, and I were making the rules, this is what I would choose.

TeamSkyFans said:
The argument for: He wasnt banned for anything performance enhancing. He did not win the tour because of clenbuterol.
Sure about that? One could argue he used it a month before the Tour - as a teammate anonymously revealed - to take off an extra half kilo of weight, which allowed him more than the :39 over Andy he got.

Chef_Vodnik said:
... it cannot be argued that this substance was in no way helpful to his victory.
Not sure if you're agreeing with me with that double negative there..?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY