UCI appeals Contador decision

[GJB123]

Isn't this thread about the appeal to CAS, and not whether leniency is being handled by whoever else? Besides the uci appealed and I thought wada was planning to as well so maybe these things you cite are irrelevant here. Terminator is right.

That only means that WADA wasn't or isn't as convinced by the facts in the Contador case as they were by the facts in the Ovtcharov case. What remains clear is that the basic opinions or baseline for cases of clen-positives also within WADA are changing. Because, as said before, if we follow Terminator's logic, and I use that term loosely, WADA should have brought Ovtcharov's case to CAS and that would have been a simple case of a 1 or 2 year ban for him. He more or less confirms this by now stating that Ovtcharov's case was dealt with by muppets in Germany and therefore cannot be taken seriously, but forgets to comment on the fact that WADA decided not to appeal. Are WADA muppets too?

A baseline has been set by WADA in the Ovtachrov case and it isn't the baseline Terminator is describing ever so obtusely. The only question that remains now is whether that baseline also includes AC's case. Only time will tell.

Regards
GJ

 

[Skandar Akbar]

That only means that WADA wasn't or isn't as convinced by the facts in the Contador case as they were by the facts in the Ovtcharov case. What remains clear is that the basic opinions or baseline for cases of clen-positives also within WADA are changing. Because, as said before, if we follow Terminator's logic, and I use that term loosely, WADA should have brought Ovtcharov's case to CAS and that would have been a simple case of a 1 or 2 year ban for him. He more or less confirms this by now stating that Ovtcharov's case was dealt with by muppets in Germany and therefore cannot be taken seriously, but forgets to comment on the fact that WADA decided not to appeal. Are WADA muppets too?

A baseline has been set by WADA in the Ovtachrov case and it isn't the baseline Terminator is describing ever so obtusely. The only question that remains now is whether that baseline also includes AC's case. Only time will tell.

Regards
GJ

So what? This case has been appealed. Terminator is talking about what happens once it is appealed. You are talking about the thought process of those whose option is to appeal. I have no argument with you if you say there is more lenience within wada now because there may very well be, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[GJB123]

So what? This case has been appealed. Terminator is talking about what happens once it is appealed. You are talking about the thought process of those whose option is to appeal. I have no argument with you if you say there is more lenience within wada now because there may very well be, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is relevant because CAS will also know about those cases. And unless Terminator has been residing in Delphi (Greece that is) for a good 2,500 years, he has no way of knowing which way they will go. He can guess, he can even make an educated guess and he might even be right but ..... even judges have changed their mind from time to time. They do not live in a vacuum.

Regards
GJ

 

[JA.Tri]

This is the decision Python described as “contradictory yet intuitive”. I’m still trying to understand what is intuitive about it. ...

The only other argument I see here is that the odds of contaminated meat, low as they are, are higher than the odds of a transfusion. Beyond the fact that this argument is not supported at all by pharmacokinetics, even if it were, it still would not address the need for proof that Terminator is raising.

So while I can conceive of ways that Bert could get off, I can’t see any way that doesn’t involve throwing aside the strict threshold rule, IOW, changing the rules specifically for his benefit. To be fair, one could make the same argument for those who have beaten (so far) a CB positive. That even a hair test, meat originating in China, and the evidence that teammates who ate the same meat also tested positive don’t constitute direct proof of contaminated meat (the “smoking steak“, anyone?).

In this limited sense, I can understand, contra Terminator, why these cases are being cited in support of Bert. Cases like the ping-pong player’s are setting a precedent that says, in effect, a CB positive can be set aside even if there is no threshold, if the evidence of contamination is strong enough. Bert is using these cases not because his evidence is necessarily as strong as theirs (some in this forum think it is), but just to take advantage of the precedent-in-the-making that even a no-threshold positive can be set aside. Once the door is open to an evidence-based decision (and remember, it was firmly closed in the case of Jessica Hardy), then one can start haggling over how much evidence, and what kind, is necessary.

The probability of contaminated meat would (should) be greater than the probability of transfusion if the matter is being decided under civil/administrative law.

If the matter is being decided under criminal law principles then: probability of transfusion would need to be 10 times (just an arbitrary figure from yours truly) probability of contaminated meat.

Aside: There are aspects of AC's (and others') cases (IMO) being decided first on civil law and then criminal law principles.

 

[Andynonomous]

The probability of contaminated meat would (should) be greater than the probability of transfusion if the matter is being decided under civil/administrative law law.

He was caught with the smoking gun (test positive for an illegal PED). If the odds that it was meat is any less than 90% (regardless of the odds of other scenarios), he SHOULD be toast.

There seems to be a lot of people on here that are trying to "move the bar" to a lower standard however.

 

[JA.Tri]

He was caught with the smoking gun (test positive for an illegal PED). If the odds that it was meat is any less than 90% (regardless of the odds of other scenarios), he SHOULD be toast.

There seems to be a lot of people on here that are trying to "move the bar" to a lower standard however.

IMO AC registered +ve for Clenbuterol as a result of doping. Do I know this? NO. If AC can demonstrate that the probability of no negligence is greater than the probability of "nefarious" causes then it is within CAS purview to issue "positive CB reading...no penalty".

Otherwise (as I suspect), penalty: 2 years.

I do not think that CAS will find "no significant negligence". Therefore penalty: 1 year unlikely.

 

[flicker]

If Alberto gets banned(which would be likely right before the tour) when would the 1 or 2 year ban start and end, seeing as he is racing now?

 

[Merckx index]

You people have no idea what you are talking about. You are confusing cases decided by national federations which are comprised of former athletes who have no legal expertise whatsoever and tons of corruption...and equating those decisions with CAS rulings. CAS does not cite federation cases in their rulings as precedents!

A while back, Python noted that four recent CB cases, including Ovtcharov's and the Dane Philip Nielson, decided by four national federations, suggest a possible trend towards eliminating a strict threshold. I know your response would be the above quote. The question is, do you really think ALL national federations are run by people who are incompetent and/or corrupt? I tend to agree with you that the decision by RFEC was highly biassed, but it seems to me doubtful that every other national federation is just as bad.

Consider the Hardy case. She was judged by USADA, which certainly had a very strong motivation to let her off--she was one of the brightest stars on the Olympic team, and her suspension was widely seen as unfortunate at the least, a travesty at worst. Yet this national federation still made this decision. Doesn't that suggest that if four different feds are letting off athletes with CB, at least some of these cases might be strong enough to pass muster at CAS--and maybe that's even why WADA declined to appeal Ovtcharov's?

Again, I agree with you about Bert, but you're painting with a very broad brush here. Just because one national federation, for which there might be independent reasons for doubting their fairness, let off an athlete with CB, doesn't mean that all these decisions are ignorant and would be jettisoned by CAS.

 

[lean mean &green]

Consider the Hardy case. She was judged by USADA, which certainly had a very strong motivation to let her off--she was one of the brightest stars on the Olympic team, and her suspension was widely seen as unfortunate at the least, a travesty at worst. Yet this national federation still made this decision. Doesn't that suggest that if four different feds are letting off athletes with CB, at least some of these cases might be strong enough to pass muster at CAS--and maybe that's even why WADA declined to appeal Ovtcharov's?

RFEC and USADA aren't counterparts. USADA is an extension of WADA. they are a NADO, National Antidoping Organization. RFEC is a national federation, more the equivalent of USA Cycling in this comparison. obviously these organizations need to work together, a national federation has to uphold a ban that results from the hard work of a NADO but they have very different agendas. even in the US for instance, USADA's credibility trumps USAC's by a mile.

it almost sounds trite by now, but ideally these cases need to move toward as objective a third party as possible and that needs to happen earlier in the process if not right away. the responsibility eventually falls upon CAS but EVERYONE agrees that it needs to be more timely.

 

[roundabout]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7...ng-questions-about-the-Contador-positive.aspx

 

[webvan]

Wow...Paddy's really the character isn't he!

 

[sniper]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7...ng-questions-about-the-Contador-positive.aspx

great interview.
a lot of common sense coming from that guy.
looking forward to part 2.

 

[Merckx index]

RFEC and USADA aren't counterparts. USADA is an extension of WADA. they are a NADO, National Antidoping Organization. RFEC is a national federation, more the equivalent of USA Cycling in this comparison. obviously these organizations need to work together, a national federation has to uphold a ban that results from the hard work of a NADO but they have very different agendas. even in the US for instance, USADA's credibility trumps USAC's by a mile.

Again, I’m not comparing USADA to RFEC. But what about CONI? Maybe an extension of the international Olympic committee, but that's my point, all these "national federations" are not the same, you can't lump them all together as Term seems to do and claim they are all equally corrupt. Or if you want to argue that the interenational Olympic committee is just as corrupt as UCI, consider what CONI has done.

A lot of us here have admired the way CONI went after Valverde. Wrt CB, they gave Colo a ban, so they clearly enforced the threshold rule. But they also accepted his story that the CB was from contaminated meat, and so reduced the suspension. So here you have a national federation that is willing to enforce the threshold rule, but at the same time accepts evidence that it was accidental ingestion. That could certainly be used by lawyers trying to change the threshold rule.

You might say that this is similar to the Hardy case, but I believe she proved that the supplement was contaminated. Colo didn’t prove the meat he ate was contaminated. Term is certainly right about this. In fact, I don’t think his evidence was really that good. His level was 200 pg/ml, which would require heavily contaminated meat--the kind that the studies I have seen suggest is not all that common even in Mexico--and though I’m not sure, I don’t think he had a negative test soon before the positive, which would rule out dosing directly. If he didn't he could have taken CB quite a while before the test. If he did have a negative test shortly before the positive, you still have transfusion as a very viable option.

So you can certainly argue that this is another case of a national fed being a little lenient. But the bottom line, for me, is that they did suspend him. It’s not like they made a joke out of the decision. Though it's not in the rule book, you could argue that if a rider gets two years for EPO or blood doping, one year for taking CB is reasonable. Again, I'm not saying that the decision-making bodies should think this way, only that I think justice was pretty much served in this case--even as it did open the door a little towards a ruling like Ovtcharov's.

great interview.
a lot of common sense coming from that guy.
looking forward to part 2.

Agree. I love the way he made some very damning revelations about McQ, yet did it all in a very stick-to-the-facts, journalistic manner, not letting his emotions (of which there must be considerable) cloud the story. The only thing in that interview I would criticize is that he said he thinks Bert withdrew blood for a transfusion, and maybe "in the spring", months earlier. That would require frozen cells, and storing contaminated plasma. Possible, and we've seen suggestions recently that others are also thinking this way, but whole blood withdrawn in June is still the strongest alternative to contaminated meat.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

Answer from CAS.

Following up on my post #21 in this thread, about the scope of the CAS Appeal (re intro of evidence for blood transfusion/DHEP), here is the answer in full.... from Counsel to the CAS.

Dear Sir,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 24 March 2011.

Please see the answers below, which are of a general nature and do not apply to all specific cases. Therefore, they cannot be considered as a legal opinion for your case. For all other procedural questions relating to CAS, I refer you to the Code of Sports-related Arbitration. For any specific legal questions, please be advised that the CAS Court office cannot assist you.

Yours sincerely,

William Sternheimer

Counsel to the CAS



From: xxxxxxx
Sent: jeudi 24 mars 2011 13:51
To: Info
Subject: A question of evidence and the Scope of Appeals - related to disciplinary procedure(s) of a National Sports Federation.



Hello,

I wish to ask some questions regarding the scope of the appeals process, in particular when it is related to a disciplinary procedure issued by a National Sports Federation.

Question 1: Is the scope of the appeal and the evidence relating to the appeal limited to the original charge(s) which were bought to bear by the National Federation?

As per Article R57 of the Code of Sports-related arbitration, the Panel shall have full power to review the facts and the law. New evidence can be brought before CAS and scope of appeal may be broadened. There must however be a link with original charges.

Question 2: Can the Appellant bring forward evidence of a further (new) offence, which may provide a different or alternate view of the situation regarding the original charge(s)?

For new offences, first instance proceedings may be necessary, on a case by case basis.

Question 3: Can the Defendant or other parties to the appeal request the exclusion of any new evidence that the Appellant may wish to introduce?

In case a party objects to a “new evidence”, it will be for the Panel to decide. In principle, parties are free to provide any evidence they deem necessary.

Best Regards,

 

[Cimber]

Interesting but UCI have already said that they will not bring the blooddoping and plasticizer into the appeal. However, we dont know if WADA will if they appeal. But unless the plasticizer test is approved and thoroughly tested I dont see that happening.

But interesting answer.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Interesting but UCI have already said that they will not bring the blooddoping and plasticizer into the appeal. However, we dont know if WADA will if they appeal. But unless the plasticizer test is approved and thoroughly tested I dont see that happening.

But interesting answer.

Interesting non answer you mean. I do appreciate the posting of this email but it reads like a horoscope. Anybody can read what they want out of it.

 

[GJB123]

Interesting but UCI have already said that they will not bring the blooddoping and plasticizer into the appeal. However, we dont know if WADA will if they appeal. But unless the plasticizer test is approved and thoroughly tested I dont see that happening.

But interesting answer.

Hell, we are not even sure the test for AC actually exists.

Regards
GJ

 

[GreasyMonkey]

Interesting non answer you mean. I do appreciate the posting of this email but it reads like a horoscope. Anybody can read what they want out of it.

Find me a legal opinion of general principle that does NOT read like a horoscope....

I asked the questions not specific on the point of the plasticiser, although that and other points of additional evidence triggered my questions as to the process and scope of CAS Appeals.

 

[Escarabajo]

Following up on my post #21 in this thread, about the scope of the CAS Appeal (re intro of evidence for blood transfusion/DHEP), here is the answer in full.... from Counsel to the CAS.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Escarabajo]

Interesting non answer you mean. I do appreciate the posting of this email but it reads like a horoscope. Anybody can read what they want out of it.

What type of answer did you expect? "yes we want to nail Contador against the wall"

 

[Lanark]

As expected, WADA will appeal as well.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

As expected, WADA will appeal as well.

Huh? Write louder. Know it alls in here will be spinning soon due to the new lenient wada now appealing. Buy stock in bayer.

Do you have a link for this?

 

[Andynonomous]

Huh ?

Huh? Write louder. Know it alls in here will be spinning soon due to the new lenient wada now appealing. Buy stock in bayer.

I tried Google translate on the above quote and got :


You have the fishbreath of a thousand virgins. Please take your hoo hoo away from the children, as it is bringing flies. At last we will bring down the masters of beduin thieves.



Can anyone else translate this better ?

 

[Merckx index]

Based on documents submitted to Spanish federation by his legal team and obtained by Cyclingnews, his tainted meat defence stands up according to a number of well-respected scientific experts.

Who? Could we have some names please? Who is it that is not allowing these documents to be made public? Is it Bert’s team or is it CN?

A quick trawl of the Spanish press also reveals extensive evidence that doping of cattle with clenbuterol in order to boost the quality of the meat does take place in Spain, despite what the breeders’ associations may have vociferously claimed.

Yes, and an even quicker trawl of the statistics shows that they let it clear before slaughter of the animals. There may be evidence of tainted cattle in Spain, there is no evidence of tainted meat from those cattle. Did you even read the RFEC report? Shouldn't that be part of the job description for writing an article about Contador for CN?

 

[Skandar Akbar]

I think that article was written by AC's brother.