Some interesting points I came across in the report. In the UCI’s testimony:
1. They take into account Bert’s association with Saiz, and the problems with doping at Astana. I didn’t know that a rider's past history, including evidence unrelated to laboratory tests, could be part of the case.
2. They say that Ashenden provided evidence that Bert’s blood samples during the 2010 TDF were not normal. He had levels of reticulocytes and of Hb that were also higher than during previous GTs he had raced in, not just higher than in recent tests before the 2010 TDF. What Ashenden was prevented from doing was arguing that a DEHP-free bag is sufficiently possible to account for the two-step transfusion theory. This was apparently what the ruckus was about in early January.
3. In mentioning the DEHP test, they also provide something new we didn’t know before, and which I had thought they should be doing: Bert’s levels of DEHP were tested on other days, providing a sort of baseline, and were found to be normal. This tends to rule out that he is some kind of outlier. His levels on July 20 were higher than any recorded in the original Spanish study of transfusions, and only 5 samples out of 11,000 in a study of athletes not thought to benefit from transfusion had comparable values. Exceeded the 99.9% reference level.
4. UCI categorically states that contamination is no more likely than, and most likely less likely than, transfusion. Also, that even if contamination were the most likely source, Bert still has failed to prove it.
From WADA’s testimony:
1. They note that RFEC incorrectly placed the burden of proof on WADA instead of on the athlete.
2. They note that the level of contamination of meat would be such that the animal would have to be slaughtered immediately after the last dose of CB, which makes no sense since then it would not benefit from that dose. Again, this is the argument that while ranchers may dope their cattle, they let CB clear the system before slaughter. This argument, ironically, mirrors the one Bert's team used successfully to rebut the notion that he withdrew blood while doped up with CB (see below).
3. They estimate the probability of any head of cattle being contaminated as 0.0042%, which is about one in twenty-five thousand, and argue that the probability any particular sample of meat being contaminated is even less than that.
4. Something on protection of anonymous witnesses? Lawyers weigh in, please, this is very interesting, but don’t have time to read the relevant passages.
Some other important points:
1. Panel found it unlikely meat was imported from South America. Quite sure the cattle was raised and slaughtered in Spain.
2. The brother who was busted for doping cattle did this at a time (1996) when this was much more common, so it is not considered significant evidence for the possibility that the rancher that might have supplied Bert’s meat was doping.
The 1 ug/ml blood level of CB is mentioned again in article 416, and is described as “low”. This has to be a mistake.
In article 417 it’s argued that body builders use only 100-300 ng a day. This strikes me as a prime example of what another poster called cherry-picking. Maybe they found one blog somewhere that said this, but it's not at all typical. WADA suggested 60-120 ug a day. This is much more realistic, and also in line what the most cited study of the pharmacokinetics of CB used. I really doubt that 100-300 ng would have any effect at all. Indeed, this is the estimated amount Bert ingested to get 50 pg/ml, and everyone seems to agree that it would have had no PE effect.
Yet the panel apparently bought Bert's argument that the doses suggested by WADA were too high, and concluded that Bert would not have taken such very large doses of CB right before withdrawal. I think this was the main reason they found transfusion very unlikely. WADA, really grasping at straws at one point, argued that Bert might have transfused someone else’s plasma, and not checked to see if that someone had been using CB. Good grief.
I find the arguments for a contaminated supplement very unconvincing--and I think the panel does, too. They just think transfusion and meat are even more unlikely. But Bert furnished a list of 27 supplements Astana made available to the team, and also checked with six different manufacturers, who don't use CB and apparently have never had one of their products test positive for CB. Seems to me some inconsistent logic here. The panel accepts Bert's argument that he would stupid to take large doses of CB right before withdrawing blood, but find it more plausible that he would take a supplement unapproved by his team in the middle of the Tour. Does any supplement really make that much difference to performance that it would be worth the risk?
Again, I wonder if the greater sensitivity at Cologne has made some supplements that would normally be considered free of CB by industry standards now capable of giving an athlete a positive. But it's hard to say more while this 1 ug/ml value is on the record. In addition to suggesting an impossibly high level of CB, and being inconsistent with the 50 pg/ml the following day, it would far more likely mean direct use of CB, not a supplement.
Wrt the question, why not just one year? All I can come up with is that CAS felt that Bert may have lied about taking the supplement, rather than coming out with it honestly. If you read the section on evidence for supplement, it basically boils down to, he must have taken a supplement that he didn't tell anyone else about, since the known ones were clean. If you buy this, then you pretty much buy that Bert was covering this up (and CAS basically says this in this part of the report). I'm not familiar with the rules here, but I imagine if you don't come clean about a supplement, it goes worse for you?
Best line of the day: "Contador could still appeal to a higher authority, however, such as Lance Armstrong's lawyers."
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling...-ruling-gives-sport-cycling-another-black-eye
Edit: If I may insert some possibly relevant boxing news. Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr., won a middleweight bout this past Sat. night. Now it turns out he "forgot" to provide a urine sample after the fight. This is especially interesting because two weeks before the fight he was arrested for DUI and according to police logs, weighed 175--15 pounds over the middleweight max. As we discussed here recently wrt Bert's "natural" methods of eating, that's a lot of weight to lose in two weeks. Supposedly he was still 5 pounds overweight the day before the weigh-in. Think he might have used some CB? Stay tuned.
-sporting wise: LA walks away with impunity, the Pats lost the Superbowl & just when I thought of a fresh start for this week- I get brought down by the CAS ruling on Alberto's case ............ 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram