UCI appeals Contador decision

[TourOfSardinia]

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

The only new opinion it expresses is that AC will win the Flèche Wallonne!
Nice one!

 

[Mister Crud]

Surely it is logical that AC would not have risked taking anything detectable since all this blew up. Yet he is still performing at the same level as in the past.
Initially I wanted to see him banned. But now, considering his continued awesome form whilst riding clean, I would definitely give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[auscyclefan94]

So can someone explain to me what is the point of UCI and WADA lodging seperate appeals? I do not get it...

 

[Cimber]

So can someone explain to me what is the point of UCI and WADA lodging seperate appeals? I do not get it...

Ye I would like to know what this means too. Will there be two CAS cases then?? If that is the case there will surely be no decision before the Tour

 

[Jamsque]

One would imagine that the UCI and WADA would be treated as joint parties, but who knows.

As for the idea that Contador is riding clean now, don't be stupid. He only got caught for Clenbuterol, so if he stopped taking anything at all (which I doubt) he probably just stopped taking Clen. The way he thrashed the field at Murcia and Catalunya I am pretty sure he is still juiced up to his eyeballs.

 

[TERMINATOR]

In the Pellizotti case the verdict was less than 2 months after the UCI announced their appeal. Obivously the Contador case is very complex, but so was the Pellizotti/biological passport case. But I believe that was an unusually fast proces, it normally takes more time for CAS to come to a verdict.

Contador's case is actually not complex at all. All the garbage his attorneys submitted about contaminated meat is not evidence since they failed to show a sample of contaminated meat.

All this case is about is a positive analytical test that was never refuted by Contador's attorney. Their strategy is idiotic and CAS will sock this Spanish doper with 2 years.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Surely it is logical that AC would not have risked taking anything detectable since all this blew up. Yet he is still performing at the same level as in the past.
Initially I wanted to see him banned. But now, considering his continued awesome form whilst riding clean, I would definitely give him the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, it's not like Tyler Hamilton continued to dope after the UCI sent him a letter in 2003 telling him they knew he was blood doping and to stop.

...or that the UCI knew Levi's off-score was also around 133 and he continued to dope....or the fact the DiLuca was already suspended and then continued to dope. Or Ricco...or Sinkewicz.

Yeah, you're right...cyclists never dope once they're caught.

Thanks for your keen insight.

 

[Bumeington]

UCI and WADA launch seperate appeals

I think that the reason for WADA's seperate appeal is that they don't trust the UCI. The UCI would rather appeal and fail, thus keeping Contador in the sport with no questions (by the mainstream media at least) about his positive test remaining. WADA would rather see him go down as this is a good first step towards cleaning up the sport (even if he's not any worse than the rest of the top riders)

 

[TERMINATOR]

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.

Two things. One, yes - absolutely every single national federation is corrupt and incompetent. The people on their discipline committees are often not college graduates. They are completely corrupt and reckless individuals. Most of them spent their entire careers on the national federation covering up doping. They are the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse. In fact, the entire purpose of creating WADA was to do away with these corrupt national federations.

Second, USADA is completely different than the RFEC or any other national federation who adjudicates doping cases - USADA conducts truly adversarial proceedings against athletes.

And USADA handles all doping cases against all sports, so cyclists are just another crooked athlete to them.

The difference between USADA and RFEC is USADA is trying to build a doping case against Lance Armstrong with no analytical positive, whereas RFEC invents excuses for Contador and covers up an analytical positive with wacky stories of contaminated meat that had no proof to back them.

Also, Hardy was not "judged by USADA," as you incorrectly claim. She was given a 1-year suspension by an arbitration panel. USADA then appealed because they wanted her to get 2 years (CAS rejected the 2-year ban because Hardy was able to show her supplements were contaminated with clenbuterol and instead affirmed her 1 year ban).

So you don't even understand basic facts of the cases you quote and then draw all sorts of incorrect inferences based on incorrect facts.

I feel like I'm herding sheep in here sometimes. Can you people please just do some basic research before posting?

 

[TERMINATOR]

I think that the reason for WADA's seperate appeal is that they don't trust the UCI. The UCI would rather appeal and fail, thus keeping Contador in the sport with no questions (by the mainstream media at least) about his positive test remaining. WADA would rather see him go down as this is a good first step towards cleaning up the sport (even if he's not any worse than the rest of the top riders)

This is correct.

 

[Cimber]

Will it mean that there will be two totally seperate CAS-cases then?

 

[Merckx index]

Also, Hardy was not "judged by USADA," as you incorrectly claim. She was given a 1-year suspension by an arbitration panel. USADA then appealed because they wanted her to get 2 years (CAS rejected the 2-year ban because Hardy was able to show her supplements were contaminated with clenbuterol and instead affirmed her 1 year ban).

So you don't even understand basic facts of the cases you quote and then draw all sorts of incorrect inferences based on incorrect facts.

I feel like I'm herding sheep in here sometimes. Can you people please just do some basic research before posting?

OK, I was too lazy to look up the details when I posted, but the point I was making obviously stands: USADA was in favor of a suspension for Hardy. For someone who almost totally misrepresented my views on Contador, just because you didn't do the basic research of reading my previous posts, this is a bit hypocritical.

You make the relevant objection that USADA is different from national federations. But then--again not practicing what you preach--you ignore the follow-up post, in response to LMG (who made the same point about USADA that you did), in which I suggested CONI. Is CONI corrupt, too? If it is, why did they go after Valverde? Because he isn't Italian? Why did they suspend Colo?

I'm not saying there aren't problems with national federations, or that it might not be better to do away with that system. I'm just objecting to the implied notion that the national federations can never be trusted to suspend their own athletes. They do it all the time. The Colo case was clearly one where a federation could have gotten away with letting off the rider, using the same no fault clause that RFEC used with Bert, but they gave him a one year suspension.

 

[TERMINATOR]

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.

CONI is one of the most corrupt national anti-doping federations in the world. DiLuca was caught 3 times for doping and the last time ended up with less than a year. The guy should have been banned for at least 8 years or given a lifetime suspension. Instead, he gets less then 2 years for a third offense.

CONI only went after Valverde because he was from another federation and there was national hatred against Spain for not doing anything about dopers and their riders doing well in the Giro and elsewhere - Valverde being their prime target of revenge.

CONI also gave Marta Bastienelli a 1 year suspension but CAS had to raise it to 2 years.

CONI believed a ridiculous story of meat contamination by Colo.....cocaine contaminated chocolate made by the grandmother of a former Giro winner (Simoni), and somehow could never find Pantani, Rebellin, or Garzelli positive in an out of competition test.

One of the big secrets is Spain and Italy and all the Euro countries is that they do not do out of competition testing. They claim they do, but they really don't. The UCI rarely does them.

USADA is the only anti-doping agency that routinely does out of competition testing. All the other countries rely on in-competition testing.

Most of the doping cases USADA prosecutes are from out-of-competition tests. In Europe, almost no OOC cases are ever brought.

The problem is riders know they will be tested after races, so it's easier for them to get away with it in Europe.

So CONI is a seriously corrupt organization.

CONI conducts almost no out-of-competition tests and bends over backwards to let Italian riders off with slap-on-the-wrist suspensions.

 

[lean mean &green]

You make the relevant objection that USADA is different from national federations. But then--again not practicing what you preach--you ignore the follow-up post, in response to LMG (who made the same point about USADA that you did), in which I suggested CONI. Is CONI corrupt, too? If it is, why did they go after Valverde? Because he isn't Italian? Why did they suspend Colo?

you have to be careful with that comparison to Italy. the national fed in Italy is the Federazione Ciclistica Italiana (FCI). CONI is the acronym for the Italialian Olympic Committee but CONI-NADO is often shortened to CONI in conversation. CONI and USADA would be pretty analogous actually.

i mostly assumed you knew the difference between these organizations but wanted to make it clear to everyone following the debate. i'm not taking the same stance as "the TERM" by saying ALL federations are corrupt - i'm only emphasizing how important it is to keep the acronyms and their motives straight. corruption is a strong word, i'd say that the nat fed's have a bigger conflict of interest and are more likely to show leniency to their athletes than the NADO's.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Nevertheless WADA decided not to appeal the pong player's case. Or are they also completely stupid? Whether you like it or not the sign posts are shifting.

Regards
GJ

Why do I have to explain everything to you people?

The reason WADA didn't appeal the ping pong player case:

1.) He was in China and the risk of contaminated meat in China is likely much higher than in Europe.
2.) He submitted a negative hair sample test which I couldn't help but notice Contador failed to do.
3.) Ping Pong is a silly, idiotic sport with little or no money. WADA doesn't care. It's a nuisance sport in the Olympics and the IOC doesn't derive any money from this sport.
4.) Unlike in the sport of cycling, clenbuterol would have almost no performance enhancing impact in the outcome of a ping pong match.
5.) WADA's budget for appeals is limited (how many fvcking times do I have to say this?) and they only want to focus on BIG cases in sports where the stakes are high (i.e. Contador with a Tour de France victory). Appealing these Mickey Mouse ping pong player cases is akin to asking a U.S. Attorney to prosecute a 5 year old for re-using a stamp.

You people better get your act together.

 

[GJB123]

You only discuss the facts of each individual case and not the policy behind WADA's decision, that I was alluding to.

Are you so thick or stupid that you don't see the difference? Following your own logic the pong player's case should have been easy and air tight for WADA. Do I have to spell it? Here goes:
- Banned substance,
- Zero threshold,
- Strict liability,
- No evidence produced whatsoever of the contaminated meat.
should easily have spelled a 2 year ban if your description of WADA policy is in any way accurate.

Do you really think that WADA is as moronic as you are that they couldn't see it coming that more people (like AC) would start referring to Ovtcharov's case? They created a precedent there and me personally thinks they did so knowingly. They didn't just "forget" or just didn't "bother" to appeal because it was only a pong player. You can shout all you like, be as obtuse as you like, that doesn't make you less wrong. The sign posts are shifting on Clen-cases and that's it. Whether or not that will help AC remains to be seen as his case is not as strong as the pong players, but it is no longer beyond the realm of possibilities by any means.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

You only discuss the facts of each individual case and not the policy behind WADA's decision, that I was alluding to.

Are you so thick or stupid that you don't see the difference? Following your own logic the pong player's case should have been easy and air tight for WADA. Do I have to spell it? Here goes:
- Banned substance,
- Zero threshold,
- Strict liability,
- No evidence produced whatsoever of the contaminated meat.
should easily have spelled a 2 year ban if your description of WADA policy is in any way accurate.

Do you really think that WADA is as moronic as you are that they couldn't see it coming that more people (like AC) would start referring to Ovtcharov's case? They created a precedent there and me personally thinks they did so knowingly. They didn't just "forget" or just didn't "bother" to appeal because it was only a pong player. You can shout all you like, be as obtuse as you like, that doesn't make you less wrong. The sign posts are shifting on Clen-cases and that's it. Whether or not that will help AC remains to be seen as his case is not as strong as the pong players, but it is no longer beyond the realm of possibilities by any means.

Regards
GJ

the sign posts are shifting?
What about: the number of positives is increasing due to improved detection methods.
as a result you're gonna have clear fasle positives (à la Ovtcharov) on the one hand, and very dubious cases that are more likely to be real positives (indeed AC) on the other hand.

It's time for you (and some, though few, others around here) to revise the claim that AC's and Ovtcharov's cases are the same.

The writing was on the wall, and I'm happy to see that the WADA isn't wearing blinders.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

the sign posts are shifting?
What about: the number of positives is increasing due to improved detection methods.
as a result you're gonna have clear fasle positives (à la Ovtcharov) on the one hand, and very dubious cases that are more likely to be real positives (indeed AC) on the other hand.

It's time for you (and some, though few, others around here) to revise the claim that AC's and Ovtcharov's cases are the same.

The writing was on the wall, and I'm happy to see that the WADA isn't wearing blinders.

Nice sniper. I want to congratulate you and terminator in this thread. We go from AC with a bs defense with no proof of contamination let off by the corrupt rfec, to gj, publicus, etal twisting themselves in knots to get ac off because of what wada did on an unrelated case and because uci may not go on wild goose chases to prove how clen got in ac system. Honestly it was difficult typing all of that because it is so silly.

Though I think terminator is pretty heavy on calling people stupid I really like his style. Seeing him slap around these guys is poetry in motion. Keep them in line terminator!

 

[GJB123]

the sign posts are shifting?
What about: the number of positives is increasing due to improved detection methods.
as a result you're gonna have clear fasle positives (à la Ovtcharov) on the one hand, and very dubious cases that are more likely to be real positives (indeed AC) on the other hand.

It's time for you (and some, though few, others around here) to revise the claim that AC's and Ovtcharov's cases are the same.

The writing was on the wall, and I'm happy to see that the WADA isn't wearing blinders.

Basically the cases are the same. What of this part did you not understand?

- Banned substance,
- Zero threshold,
- Strict liability,
- No evidence produced whatsoever of the contaminated meat.

Both rely on proving their innocence by showing that any other explanation is less likely. Both of them cannot produce the contaminated meat. Where the cases start differing is how they proof likelihood of contamination and the strength of those arguments. But the basic legal strategy that is behind it, is exactly the same and should by all accounts not work for either according to Terminator. The fact that it does work in the Ovtcharov-case leaves open only the question in what other cases and with which set of facts it will also work. The AC case will teach us more on that.

And as to skandar akbar. What can I say dude? If I am not with you I am against you, I guess? And since you are obviously anti-AC, I am supposed to pro-AC? The same applies to Publicus? What a pitiful point of view that is very reminiscent of school ground bully boy tactics. Then again from your earlier posts perhaps I shouldn't expect anything better than you being a loudmouth without a clue.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

Basically the cases are the same. What of this part did you not understand?

- Banned substance,
- Zero threshold,
- Strict liability,
- No evidence produced whatsoever of the contaminated meat.

If you want to ignore the difference between, on the one hand, having a negative hairtest, a payed dinner in a Chinese restaurant and tested CLEN-positve dining mates and, on the other hand, not having any of that, then be my guest.

 

[GJB123]

If you want to ignore the difference between, on the one hand, having a negative hairtest, a payed dinner in a Chinese restaurant and tested CLEN-positve dining mates and, on the other hand, not having any of that, then be my guest.

Did Ovtcharov produce the meat and proved that is was contaminated? Because that is what Terminator says you must do in order to proof that it was not your fault. The answer is that he didn't and that he relied on establishing the likelihood of contamination. And that was accepted.

You again concentrate on the factual differences in the cases, which I have acknowlegded time and time again (so you can toss that straw man in the bin). But despite the factual differences, the basic legal strategy is the same being: If you cannot proof that the meat you ate was contaminated (and you can only do that if you provide the meat itself), you can get off by establishing that contamination is the most likely explanation.

So Ovtcharov had a stronger case than AC (I will grant you that), but he would still have been toast if they hadn't accepted his defense which was based on likelihoods instead of physical evidence or proof. The acceptance of that strategy by WADA is a clear shift from earlier policy.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

Did Ovtcharov produce the meat and proved that is was contaminated? Because that is what Terminator says you must do in order to proof that it was not your fault. The answer is that he didn't and that he relied on establishing the likelihood of contamination. And that was accepted.

You again concentrate on the factual differences in the cases, which I have acknowlegded time and time again (so you can toss that straw man in the bin). But despite the factual differences, the basic legal strategy is the same being: If you cannot proof that the meat you ate was contaminated (and you can only do that if you provide the meat itself), you can get off by establishing that contamination is the most likely explanation.

So Ovtcharov had a stronger case than AC (I will grant you that), but he would still have been toast if they hadn't accepted his defense which was based on likelihoods instead of physical evidence or proof. The acceptance of that strategy by WADA is a clear shift from earlier policy.

Regards
GJ

ok, good reply. thanks.

I recognize that I sometimes fail to distinguish between what is legally relevant and what (I feel) is common-sensically relevant.

Clearly, in this case (or these two cases, if we include Ovtcharov's) there are more assumptions than facts. It's quite thrilling to await the arguments that the parties will put on the table to strengthen their cases.

Hopefully in the end, there'll be more facts than assumptions.

And hopefully AC receives a ban. Even in the unlikely case that this is about contamination, the guy is so clearly a cheat, and so clearly protected from above, that it makes me puke all over my keyboard.
Not sure if that makes me a hater or simply someone craving for justice to be done.

 

[Escarabajo]

Surely it is logical that AC would not have risked taking anything detectable since all this blew up. Yet he is still performing at the same level as in the past.
Initially I wanted to see him banned. But now, considering his continued awesome form whilst riding clean, I would definitely give him the benefit of the doubt.

Remember, it is not about the Clen. That was not the source of his power at all.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think that the reason for WADA's seperate appeal is that they don't trust the UCI. The UCI would rather appeal and fail, thus keeping Contador in the sport with no questions (by the mainstream media at least) about his positive test remaining. WADA would rather see him go down as this is a good first step towards cleaning up the sport (even if he's not any worse than the rest of the top riders)

+1 Nice summary of where we are with Pharmador.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Two things. One, yes - absolutely every single national federation is corrupt and incompetent. The people on their discipline committees are often not college graduates. They are completely corrupt and reckless individuals. Most of them spent their entire careers on the national federation covering up doping. They are the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

Careful. I think you are generalizing a bit too much. This leads to the opportunity to disregard critics by citing statements like this. Common tactic designed to keep things just like they are.

Second, USADA is completely different than the RFEC or any other national federation who adjudicates doping cases - USADA conducts truly adversarial proceedings against athletes.

And USADA handles all doping cases against all sports, so cyclists are just another crooked athlete to them.

The difference between USADA and RFEC is USADA is trying to build a doping case against Lance Armstrong with no analytical positive, whereas RFEC invents excuses for Contador and covers up an analytical positive with wacky stories of contaminated meat that had no proof to back them.

Here's where I argue that USADA lacks the resources on their own to bring the principals that own the US cycling federation down. As the doping prosecutor of all sports in the U.S. I'd argue they don't have the resources to do anything well besides run OTC blood tests. Their 2009 record of successful prosecutions is mostly for THC.

Tailwind can bring a mighty phalanx of lawyers and work through congress with Fabiani the fabricator. Congress funds USADA. If USADA got too close to nailing a Tailwind principal, then watch that USADA funding dry up. Tailwind knows they can outspend and out maneuver USADA. It's the least of their problems.

While I agree with your general idea that the Contador excuse is plain wacky, watch those generalizations.