Spanish "justice" with respect to Contador

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
sniper said:
why is not relevant? His steak story would make a small bit of sense if it weren't for the plasticizers. He could at least deny that any were found. The fact that he doesn't, means they were found. How is that not relevant? the plasticizer test was recently approved.
His silencing about the plasticizers suggests they were there.
Nah, he shouldn't mention them. He's not supposed to dispel every rumour out there. Whoever, any journalist worth their salt should have asked him about it.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
hrotha said:
Nah, he shouldn't mention them. He's not supposed to dispel every rumour out there. Whoever, any journalist worth their salt should have asked him about it.
Im not saying he should mention them. I'm just saying it is telling that he doesn't. If it were a false rumour, this would be his chance to dismiss it.
and much of the "culebron" he's talking about is the result of the plasticizers (well, that, and the HUMO).
but again, it is merely predictable that he doesn't mention any of that.
 
sniper said:
why is not relevant? His steak story would make a small bit of sense if it weren't for the plasticizers. He could at least deny that any were found. The fact that he doesn't, means they were found. How is that not relevant? the plasticizer test was recently approved.
His silencing about the plasticizers suggests they were there.
He got banned for clenbuterol.

I don't really think he would want to bring the subject of the plasticisers back up. He could've talked about the plasticisers before now anyway.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
luckyboy said:
He got banned for clenbuterol.

I don't really think he would want to bring the subject of the plasticisers back up.
Fully agree. I'm just spelling out what I am tempted to infer from the fact that he doesn't dismiss the rumors.
 
sniper said:
Im not saying he should mention them. I'm just saying it is telling that he doesn't. If it were a false rumour, this would be his chance to dismiss it.
and much of the "culebron" he's talking about is the result of the plasticizers (well, that, and the HUMO).
but again, it is merely predictable that he doesn't mention any of that.
Well, he alluded to all the "false stories" circulating about him. It wouldn't be in his best interest to go any deeper than that, innocent or guilty.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
hrotha said:
Well, he alluded to all the "false stories" circulating about him. It wouldn't be in his best interest to go any deeper than that, innocent or guilty.
totally disagree
he has had plenty of time to prepare his defense. Since he cant prove his story, he COULD disprove others, which would add to his credibility by eliminating the doping scenarios.
If he were innocent he would do this
First he could say he took a hair test within a short time frame of when he tested positive and it showed there was no trace and long term doping with CB would show up in hair.
Then he would point to studies showing the small amount would have no effect on performance.
Third he would use the new plasticizer test to exonerate himself as in
"plasticizers were not found, so we have eliminated the possiblity of blood doping"
So he could claim we have eliminated the 3 plausible doping scenarios,
Blood doping
long term use
short term use
Therefor his steak defense would have more weight because of the lack of evidence to the contrary.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
runninboy said:
totally disagree
he has had plenty of time to prepare his defense. Since he cant prove his story, he COULD disprove others, which would add to his credibility by eliminating the doping scenarios.
If he were innocent he would do this
First he could say he took a hair test within a short time frame of when he tested positive and it showed there was no trace and long term doping with CB would show up in hair.
Then he would point to studies showing the small amount would have no effect on performance.
Third he would use the new plasticizer test to exonerate himself as in
"plasticizers were not found, so we have eliminated the possiblity of blood doping"
So he could claim we have eliminated the 3 plausible doping scenarios,
Blood doping
long term use
short term use
Therefor his steak defense would have more weight because of the lack of evidence to the contrary.
now, with this I agree.
I mean, where's the hairtest?
If he is innocent, a precondition is that he has a negative hairtest to show.
Although a negative hairtest would by itself of course not be sufficient to prove his innocense, it is nonetheless a pre-condition for his side of the story to be truthful.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
hrotha said:
He should have done all that long ago and included everything in his defense dossier. Allegedly, some of those things were actually included.

Today was not time.
Sure it was, it was time for rebuttal, mention simply

"a few months ago i tested positive , knowing i was innocent i began my search for the truth. I discovered it was most likely tainted meat, as it has been in cases of other athletes recently.As the meat is long gone i did all i could to prove my innocence.
I have taken all the tests to show i did not dope.
the hair test
the plasticizer test
every test i have taken has proven i have not doped
Since i am innocent i will be taking this evidence and my good name to the CAS for them to exonerate me in this manner.
thank you"
 
The Hitch said:
Well the ban atm is 1 year + Tour taken away.


If they increase the ban it would probably be to 2 years. Then they have to decide if he keeps his 2010 Tour, or they want to start the ban at the 2010 Tour, taking that away from him allowing him to return for 2012 version.

Ricco tested at Tour and got 2 years but was back in time for Österreich Rundfahrt.

Or you think theyll give him a ban of 2 years + Tour taken away? that would be going further than with most.
That's not how it works though. The ban starts when the positive result comes back. Ricco's came during the Tour (let's say July 10th or something because I have no idea). So his ban starts then. Contador tested positive much later, August 24th, so his ban starts then. 2 years from then is August 24th, 2012, period.

Him keeping his Tour title is not in question. There's no way you can let someone who tested positive during the race, keep his race results, unless you dismiss the positive altogether and don't suspend the rider (which I haven't heard of happening other than with a TUE, like Armstrong 99 or Pereiro 06). And just because the results are taken away doesn't mean that a suspension would be backdated to that point. Rebellin lost his 2008 Olympic medal, but his suspension still began in late April 2009, right after he won Fleche Wallone (which he got to keep on his palmares, because there's no evidence he was doping for that and it was before he got 'caught'). It doesn't end until late April 2011.

Finally, Ricco got his suspension reduced because he 'cooperated'. There is no justification for doing that for Contador, because he doesn't even admit doping.

So I don't see any way he gets to even start the Vuelta next year, unless for some reason the CAS tosses his case out entirely (which they won't). It wouldn't be going farther than with most riders, there's actually a long history of 'results lost + full ban', with few exceptions (and those being reduced bans for cooperators).
 
skidmark said:
That's not how it works though. The ban starts when the positive result comes back. Ricco's came during the Tour (let's say July 10th or something because I have no idea). So his ban starts then. Contador tested positive much later, August 24th, so his ban starts then. 2 years from then is August 24th, 2012, period.
Was August 24th when they announced it? Or when they tested it, and announced in September.. Just asking because I can't remember.
 
sniper said:
why not relevant? His steak story would make a small bit of sense if it weren't for the plasticizers. He could at least deny that any were found. The fact that he doesn't, means they were found. How is that not relevant? the plasticizer test was recently approved.
His silencing about the plasticizers suggests they were there.
By dignifying the rumours he would only be giving them legs to continue in the media. By not mentioning them he implies that they are a non-issue and of no importance. As someone mentioned, it's up to the media to introduce the plasticizer issue into the conversation but I would think that he would issue a "no comment" or that there is "no validity to that story", or his lawyer would for him.
 
Apr 4, 2010
2,420
0
0
The Hitch said:
If the ban starts from when the positive was found then they are basically punishing Contador for the fact that it took them a month to test the sample.
What?! He could race before he was notified so I say, ban him from the day he was suspenden from racing.
 
Walkman said:
What?! He could race before he was notified so I say, ban him from the day he was suspenden from racing.
But he didnt. There were no races to race anyway. Like i said, hes getting punished for the fact that it took them a month to test the sample.

If he cant return till August 24th then its basically a 2 year ban not a 1 year one.
 
The Hitch said:
But he didnt. There were no races to race anyway. Like i said, hes getting punished for the fact that it took them a month to test the sample.

If he cant return till August 24th then its basically a 2 year ban not a 1 year one.
He could have ridden San Sebastian. And Poland ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS