The Case for Contador

[flicker]

The Case for Contador.

For the good of cycling Alberto needs to ride the 2011 Tour.

If he passed the Biological passport he deserves the 2010 win.

The ramifications of stripping his title are extremely negative for the sport. It would be very negative for A. Schleck to win the tour by default. Negative for Schlecks' career and personally for Andy and his team.

Stripping Contadors' win will drive away sponsors. If the win of Contador is stripped the only fair thing to do would be to nullify the results of all riders from the Tour.

If a sanction is made against Contador for his tests in the 2010 tour should be made in a monetary fine. Not in any loss of 2010 tour win.

The intelligent action against Contador however if he is sanctioned would be to impose a lifetime ban against Contador for any further violations. He should also be tested with hair follicle, blood testing, urine testing, hemocrit, biological passport on a weekly basis for the rest of his career. The same should be inforced on Astanas 2010 winning tour support team. Also the same rules should be inforced on Contadors future teams and teamates.

If he has any irregularities during his testing period ie; the rest of his pro cycling career then he should be made banned and any financial contracts, sponsorship moneys, other earning should be forfitted.

Also signed into a contract a doping violation .he can do a mandatory 2 years in prison. The full 2 years.

Best rider in the peloton should be made to show that he is truely the best rider in the peloton. For the good of cycling.

 

[AussieGoddess]

Firstly - WADA or the UCI cannot contract or sanction him with a suspended prison sentence.

Secondly - they cannot sanction future team mates by forcing additional tests etc.

Thirdly - sorry, but for the good of cycling, they need to be seen to uphold the rules. For Everyone. That means, for the good of cycling they need to ban him and strip his tour - and yes this means they must give it to the cyclist who should have won but for Berties enhanced performance (I know Schleck might not be clean either, but he hasnt tested posative).

For the good of cycling they need to show that the rules apply to everyone. Inlcuding and especially the winner of the Tour de France.

 

[lean mean &green]

Firstly - WADA or the UCI cannot contract or sanction him with a suspended prison sentence.

Secondly - they cannot sanction future team mates by forcing additional tests etc.

Thirdly - sorry, but for the good of cycling, they need to be seen to uphold the rules. For Everyone. That means, for the good of cycling they need to ban him and strip his tour - and yes this means they must give it to the cyclist who should have won but for Berties enhanced performance (I know Schleck might not be clean either, but he hasnt tested posative).

For the good of cycling they need to show that the rules apply to everyone. Inlcuding and especially the winner of the Tour de France.

Firstly, it's fairly obvious flicker is only goading you into a ridiculous debate.

Secondly, my advice is to ignore him and others like him.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Flicker, just get to your obvious conclusion:

"And for the good of the cancer fight, Lance ought to be left in peace."

 

[flicker]

Flicker, just get to your obvious conclusion:

"And for the good of the cancer fight, Lance ought to be left in peace."

NOT

For the good of cycling Contador should have manned up. I believe the UCI gave him the chance. Come on let Contador ride and pay for Floyds' sins.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Crazy idea:

How 'bout we let Floyd ride instead? His sins have already been paid for, in spades.

 

[flicker]

Crazy idea:

How 'bout we let Floyd ride instead? His sins have already been paid for, in spades.

It would be great to see Floyd come back. On the bike in his full glory.

Contador needs to pay though. Offhand comments about my Lord Armstrong are not applicable here though. Lance is in his own private purgatory at this very minute. As it should be!

 

[Benotti69]

Contador needs to pay though. !

i bet Contador paid and the UCI/McQuaid spent it already in Amsterdam and they are trying to get a refund to reimburse Contador...

 

[Mich78BEL]

for the good of cycling he needs to get the same treatment as everybody else which means at minimum a one year-ban

 

[Squares]

Contador needs to pay to have a private contractor (under the supervision and observation of the Spanish Federation, WADA, and UCI) out to meat shops throughout spain and buy the cut of meat he ate

The meat then needs to be sent to independent testing labs (again under the supervision and observation of the Spanish Federation, WADA, and UCI) and the level of clenbuterol tested in the spanish meat.

If, out of 100 samples tested they can show more than 2-3 samples contain clenbuterol, then I think Contador gets a drastically reduced sentence (and the spanish beef industry collapses).

If not, he is stripped of the title and does the time on suspension!

 

[TERMINATOR]

If he passed the Biological passport he deserves the 2010 win.

Dodo Bird,

The rules say if he fails a dope test he gets DQ'ed and suspended. Can't change the rules after the fact.

The biological passport is a meaningless standard. It proves nothing and appears to be a complete waste of money.

And in case you didn't notice, Lance failed his biological passport in the 2009 Tour de France. Yet the UCI did nothing.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=80407&postcount=219

 

[TERMINATOR]

The ramifications of stripping his title are extremely negative for the sport. It would be very negative for A. Schleck to win the tour by default. Negative for Schlecks' career and personally for Andy and his team.

Please explain how enforcing the doping rules on the books is "extremely negative for the sport."

Let me help you out here since you appear to be about 12 years old....the "extremely negative" thing for the sport would be to allow Contador to keep his Tour title that he won through an act of sports fraud.

 

[TERMINATOR]

If a sanction is made against Contador for his tests in the 2010 tour should be made in a monetary fine. Not in any loss of 2010 tour win.

Contador agreed to be suspended if he tested positive. It's in the UCI rulebook, which Contador agreed to abide by when he took out his UCI license.

You can't change the rules after the fact.

According to you, the rules can just be disregarded.

 

[TERMINATOR]

The same should be inforced on Astanas 2010 winning tour support team. Also the same rules should be inforced on Contadors future teams and teamates.

"Inforced?"

You're outta control, dude.

 

[Wallace]

Contador needs to pay to have a private contractor (under the supervision and observation of the Spanish Federation, WADA, and UCI) out to meat shops throughout spain and buy the cut of meat he ate

The meat then needs to be sent to independent testing labs (again under the supervision and observation of the Spanish Federation, WADA, and UCI) and the level of clenbuterol tested in the spanish meat.

If, out of 100 samples tested they can show more than 2-3 samples contain clenbuterol, then I think Contador gets a drastically reduced sentence (and the spanish beef industry collapses).

If not, he is stripped of the title and does the time on suspension!

That would make a lot of sense, if the Spanish government didn't already rigorously test meat of clenbuterol. But I do agree with one thing: Contador has to prove that there's some chance the meat he ate had clen in it--which is going to be hard, if not impossible, to do.

As for Floyd returning to the Pro peloton--that would be great, but first he has to show that he's capable of riding at that level again, and none of his American performances has been all that impressive. To seriously interest a Euro team, with all the baggage that comes with him, he'd have to put in a few seriously dominant performances, and I don't see that happening. OTOH, he seems to be at peace with himself and happy to ride the occasional American race, flying the Arrogant ******* colors, which is pretty cool.

Edit: wow--you can't even say b@stard on this forum. That seems a little extreme.

 

[Squares]

As for Floyd returning to the Pro peloton--that would be great, but first he has to show that he's capable of riding at that level again, and none of his American performances has been all that impressive. To seriously interest a Euro team, with all the baggage that comes with him, he'd have to put in a few seriously dominant performances, and I don't see that happening. OTOH, he seems to be at peace with himself and happy to ride the occasional American race, flying the Arrogant ******* colors, which is pretty cool.

I have major problems with Floyd returning. He did get suspended and served his time for the Testosterone levels and T/E ratio and all that went along with stripping him of the Tour title. If that was it, he should be allowed back, but it is not.

He also confessed to blood doping, EPO use, Testosterone use, and a lot of other stuff in races where he finished well (like the 2004 Tour while escorting Lance). This is where my problem lies, shouldn't he get a lifetime ban for the second infraction of doping that he has confessed to?

After all, people are saying that LA should be stripped of his titles and found guilty of doping based on Floyd's coinfession so why shouldn't Floyd himself be sanctioned for that same confession?

It would be inconsistent not to sanction him in some way. Maybe a 1 year ban instead of lifetime because he confessed and is helping anti-doping authorities, but I can't see how they could just let him continue to ride without any sanction.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Edit: wow--you can't even say b@stard on this forum. That seems a little extreme.

It is extremely disrespectful to all the children born out of wedlock.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

"Inforced?"

You're outta control, dude.

Beating up on Flicker at this point is like being the 490th guy in the Houston 500.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I have major problems with Floyd returning. He did get suspended and served his time for the Testosterone levels and T/E ratio and all that went along with stripping him of the Tour title. If that was it, he should be allowed back, but it is not.

He also confessed to blood doping, EPO use, Testosterone use, and a lot of other stuff in races where he finished well (like the 2004 Tour while escorting Lance). This is where my problem lies, shouldn't he get a lifetime ban for the second infraction of doping that he has confessed to?

After all, people are saying that LA should be stripped of his titles and found guilty of doping based on Floyd's coinfession so why shouldn't Floyd himself be sanctioned for that same confession?

It would be inconsistent not to sanction him in some way. Maybe a 1 year ban instead of lifetime because he confessed and is helping anti-doping authorities, but I can't see how they could just let him continue to ride without any sanction.

Oh yeah, that's a great idea, as long as you favor enforcing the omerta. DiLuca should have been given an extra 2 years for essentially doing the same thing in front of CONI.

 

[Squares]

Oh yeah, that's a great idea, as long as you favor enforcing the omerta. DiLuca should have been given an extra 2 years for essentially doing the same thing in front of CONI.

No, I don't favor enforcing any omerta.

Say Contador gets a ban for Clenbuterol. Then a few years from now, he comes back to active riding. If at that point he were to say that he won all his TDF, Giro and Vuelta titles while doped to the gills, would you say doesn't face any penalty for all that past doping just because he was not enforcing an omerta?

If Landis doesn't face any sanction for his confession, you have just seen USADA and the UCI validate a policy that any doping confession in the absence of a positive test is unsanctionable.

Amnesty here we come (which may not be a bad idea if it were to clean up the sport)!

 

[Anonymous]

Beating up on Flicker at this point is like being the 490th guy in the Houston 500.

I understand that reference without looking it up.

 

[flicker]

Please explain how enforcing the doping rules on the books is "extremely negative for the sport."

Let me help you out here since you appear to be about 12 years old....the "extremely negative" thing for the sport would be to allow Contador to keep his Tour title that he won through an act of sports fraud.

Arnold,

During my recovery ride I thought of something else.

How bout this; re-test certain riders, I would say team CSCs doping samples during Sastres victory in the Tour for plasticizers. Nice tempo riding guys.

How bout the team samples whom rode against USPS for plastecizers. How bout Kevin Livingston, Frankie Andreaus, or that jonathon guys blood during their riding days for plastecizers. Or Lampre when Cunego was good for plastecizer.

It would be good to see what rules were inforced uh I mean enforced.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I understand that reference without looking it up.

I had to look it up, but having done so, I think he meant the 619th guy.

 

[Hugh Januss]

No, I don't favor enforcing any omerta.

Say Contador gets a ban for Clenbuterol. Then a few years from now, he comes back to active riding. If at that point he were to say that he won all his TDF, Giro and Vuelta titles while doped to the gills, would you say doesn't face any penalty for all that past doping just because he was not enforcing an omerta?

If Landis doesn't face any sanction for his confession, you have just seen USADA and the UCI validate a policy that any doping confession in the absence of a positive test is unsanctionable.

Amnesty here we come (which may not be a bad idea if it were to clean up the sport)!

Look it is no secret to me that they are doing exactly what Torri said they are doing. Obviously Contador won his GT's "doped to the gills" as you put it. So did all the others. What you are saying is if Contador were to say "yes I was doping and here is how and all my teammates were and as far as I know all my competitors were as well" that he should have all of his past victories, where he passed the tests that were administered, taken away, while Mr. "I only thought about doping" gets to keep his?
Tell me how that doesn't help enforce omerta?

 

[Squares]

Look it is no secret to me that they are doing exactly what Torri said they are doing. Obviously Contador won his GT's "doped to the gills" as you put it. So did all the others. What you are saying is if Contador were to say "yes I was doping and here is how and all my teammates were and as far as I know all my competitors were as well" that he should have all of his past victories, where he passed the tests that were administered, taken away, while Mr. "I only thought about doping" gets to keep his?
Tell me how that doesn't help enforce omerta?

What I am sayiing is that if you don't penalize someone for admitted doping, then you must give all people who admit doping amnesty.

You can't let one rider get off scot free for testing positive and then adminting to doping and then sanction another rider for doing the same thing.

I understand you point about omerta, but, if you want to rid the sport of cycling and kill the omerta, you must give all riders amnesty if they confess and not take away therir past results.