The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
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.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.
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.
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.
luckyboy said:He got banned for clenbuterol.
I don't really think he would want to bring the subject of the plasticisers back up.
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.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.
totally disagreehrotha 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
sniper said:AC live:
http://es.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/28012011/47/press-conference-contador.html
he's emphasizing the picograms of CLEN could never enhance his performance.
he's not mentioning the plasticizers.
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.
roundabout said:He was free to ride during that month.
Hey, it's not anyone's fault if Contador systematically skips half the season!Lanark said:So he can still keep his victory in the Criterium van Lommel!
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.
Descender said:
The CAS shall have full power to review the facts and the law. The CAS may increase the sanctions that were imposed on the appellant in the contested decision, either at the request of a party or ex officio.
roundabout said:Article 344 of the UCI anti-doping regulations
Walkman said:What?! He could race before he was notified so I say, ban him from the day he was suspenden from racing.
He could have ridden San Sebastian. And PolandThe 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.
Descender said: