• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

UCI appeals Contador decision

Page 22 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
Visit site
Irrelevant arguments.

I see a campaign here for aquital based on Howman's words. It's clearly clutching at straws.

- Contador tested positive for clen.
- Contador doesn't deny he had clen in his body.
- Contador claims he got it from tainted meat. The "story" of getting tainted non-liver meat from an EU country with strict controls, although possible, is highly unlikely.
- According to the rules of the game, if Contador can't PROVE he ingested it accidently, he is guilty.
- Although it hasn't been officially confirmed, Contador probably tested positive for plasticizers, therefore probably infused blood tainted with clenbuterol (which means that he is probably guilty of at least 2 kinds of illegal doping).



The "threshold" argument is absolutely irrelevant to the Contador case. Either you believe his cack-and-bull story about tainted meat, or you don't. If you don't, he is guilty. Period.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
Visit site
Vicy vercy

hrotha said:
Exactly. And that's also why a threshold makes no sense. Virtually any trace amounts found in a sample could theoretically be the result of food contamination.


And vice versa, if someone tests positive for an amount greater than a trace amount, it could still be attributable to contamination.
 
Merckx index said:
To me, that doesn’t necessarily imply that he expects CAS to uphold RFEC. It’s obvious that if WADA is going to change a major rule, they don’t do it or even announce that they will do it just before a major case based on the old rule is decided. Also, during the hearing, arguments undoubtedly will be raised about the threshold and zero tolerance issues. WADA might look on the hearing as a useful debate on the issue.

correct. if CAS doesn't uphold WADA code as it written at present, it will necessitate change. essentially, the contador case establishes precedent. this isn't even news, it's quite close to a "no comment" IMO.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
over and over...and over


once again, i have to repeat what i posted multiple times - there was a long chain of clenbuterol acquittals recently.


all after a long chain of blanket, almost automatic, bans.

contador's case is just one of them.


as i pointed multiple times, a long list of wada insiders, particularly in germany, are vigorous opposers of the current wada rule on clen.

cas is not made of blind and stoopid.
 
python said:
over and over...and over


once again, i have to repeat what i posted multiple times - there was a long chain of clenbuterol acquittals recently.


all after a long chain of blanket, almost automatic, bans.

contador's case is just one of them.


as i pointed multiple times, a long list of wada insiders, particularly in germany, are vigorous opposers of the current wada rule on clen.

cas is not made of blind and stoopid.

That's not what Floyd said.

Opponents, detractors and disagreements are not unusual in democratic societies and organizations. Especially true in anything associated with the scientific community.

There is a rule. That is ultimately what CAS needs to base its decision upon.

As I recall, an appeal to CAS cannot be based on whether the rule itself is correct. CAS has not been formed to oversee WADA's limits. Neither WADA nor the rule are on trial.

Back to Floyd, wasn't this what his PR strategy was all about - the roolz? He told everyone to play by their roolz, while he was refusing to.

Yet, the appeal had to be based on his actual tests?

Why would Contador be different? Hasn't he already admitted that there was clen in his system?

Unless he produces a cow at CAS, everything else will be a bunch of bull.

Dave.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
is there any speculation that the delay may be linked to validation of a plasticizer test? I haven't been following this closely, but a paper was due to be published in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry on such a test, which is typically a step in the validation procedure. Isn't the bigger issue for AC the elevated levels of DEHP in his sample?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
those who haven't noticed that clenbuterol with all its associated wada rules is the official ped in cas's veiw now, they need to pay more attention

if people have other reliable official information they need to bring it up. howman's statement does not sound, to me at least, that he has a plasticizer test in his back pocket.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
over and over...and over


once again, i have to repeat what i posted multiple times - there was a long chain of clenbuterol acquittals recently.


all after a long chain of blanket, almost automatic, bans.

contador's case is just one of them.


as i pointed multiple times, a long list of wada insiders, particularly in germany, are vigorous opposers of the current wada rule on clen.

cas is not made of blind and stoopid.

How many of those cases were adjudicated by CAS?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I believe the answer is one ;)
then, you answered your own question ;)
Probably all of them.
i don't know.

but what i can tell you is that one confirmed clen acquittal wada decided not to appeal after initially filing papers with cas, and of the the other 3 i am aware of, 2 have not been appealed to cas as of yet.

there is also a recent clen case where cas acquitted an athlete but the grounds were procedural it seems.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
python said:
those who haven't noticed that clenbuterol with all its associated wada rules is the official ped in cas's veiw now, they need to pay more attention

if people have other reliable official information they need to bring it up. howman's statement does not sound, to me at least, that he has a plasticizer test in his back pocket.

what makes something the "official ped in cas's view"? Howman has said repeatedly that the delay is understandable in light of the need of CAS to have 'the opportunity to hear everything." Howman has already said he believes the plasticizer test to have been validated, NYT cites levels in Contador's sample exceeding levels indicative of transfusion by 8x. Isn't there some burden on Contador's defense to show that clen via transfusion is less plausible than contaminated meat?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
mastersracer said:
what makes something the "official ped in cas's view"?
the one an athlete is officially charged with by his sports federation. uci in this case. take it for what it's worth, the uci have stepped forward and stated clen is the only substance. they even specifically stated they are not pursing anything else.

NYT cites
when nyt is mentioned as a party to the cas process i will heed it more attention.

wada. otoh, has not made it's position wrt dehp and contador specifically neither public nor explicit.

everything else is up in the air.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
python said:
the one an athlete is officially charged with by his sports federation. uci in this case. take it for what it's worth, the uci have stepped forward and stated clen is the only substance. they even specifically stated they are not pursing anything else.

when nyt is mentioned as a party to the cas process i will heed it more attention.

wada. otoh, has not made it's position wrt dehp and contador specifically neither public nor explicit.

everything else is up in the air.

That's not correct: both the UCI and WADA filed appeals and the CAS hearings in August are formally two separate cases. Howman certainly seems to indicate a broad case (besides, while clen may be the only substance, its certainly pertinent to it to consider the transfusion scenario, especially since there are reports that Contador's biopassport was being scrutinized for suspicion of blood doping prior to the positive).

Haven't all the recent clen acquittals depended on showing a contaminated meat supply (either Mexico or China)?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
mastersracer said:
That's not correct: both the UCI and WADA filed appeals and the CAS hearings in August are formally two separate cases. Howman certainly seems to indicate a broad case (besides, while clen may be the only substance, its certainly pertinent to it to consider the transfusion scenario, especially since there are reports that Contador's biopassport was being scrutinized for suspicion of blood doping prior to the positive).

Haven't all the recent clen acquittals depended on showing a contaminated meat supply (either Mexico or China)?

...or meat covered in Krautsprouts and wrapped in an old shower curtain? That would explain the plasitizers, wouldn't it?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
then, you answered your own question ;)

i don't know.

but what i can tell you is that one confirmed clen acquittal wada decided not to appeal after initially filing papers with cas, and of the the other 3 i am aware of, 2 have not been appealed to cas as of yet.

there is also a recent clen case where cas acquitted an athlete but the grounds were procedural it seems.

Well, then thats two, surely.

The other 4 cases (I assume, Ovcharov, Colo, Nielsen, Van Houts) were all to do with cases of Clenbuterol in Mexico or China - so this case is very different, which is why WADA (& separately the UCI) appealed the case.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
mastersracer said:
That's not correct: both the UCI and WADA filed appeals and the CAS hearings in August are formally two separate cases.
what is not correct ?

that nyt is not a party to the hearing ?

or that the uci has officially charged only clen and wada did not make any specific comments as to the case ?

as a lawer, you probably know that if you have an official information to the contrary you need to bring it forward and document.

if you think i did not know that the appeals are separate, you need to peruse this thread one more time.

the substance of the wada appeal has not been made public. coulda and wouda are as good as not coulda and not woulda.

you asked what made an official substance conti was charged with, you got an answer (that you probably knew anyway).

if you have anything other than coulda woulda, bring it in.
 
mastersracer said:
what makes something the "official ped in cas's view"? Howman has said repeatedly that the delay is understandable in light of the need of CAS to have 'the opportunity to hear everything." Howman has already said he believes the plasticizer test to have been validated, NYT cites levels in Contador's sample exceeding levels indicative of transfusion by 8x. Isn't there some burden on Contador's defense to show that clen via transfusion is less plausible than contaminated meat?

the "plasticizes" argument will not be brought up-UCI has already stated it since the so called "validated test" isn't reliable at the moment & there is some sort of hearsay gossiping-like created by L'equippe-BTW NYT needs to update that article.
 
hfer07 said:
the "plasticizes" argument will not be brought up-UCI has already stated it since the so called "validated test" isn't reliable at the moment & there is some sort of hearsay gossiping-like created by L'equippe-BTW NYT needs to update that article.

the UCI has stated it won't be part of their appeal but as for WADA's side of things, we don't know because their policy is to not comment. AFAIK WADA may still pursue that angle. or not, who knows?
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
hfer07 said:
the "plasticizes" argument will not be brought up-UCI has already stated it since the so called "validated test" isn't reliable at the moment & there is some sort of hearsay gossiping-like created by L'equippe-BTW NYT needs to update that article.


The statements you AND PYTHON refer to regarding whether plasticizer evidence would be considered were made in March – before the delay was announced. If you read those statements you’ll see that Contador’s lawyer was careful with his wording and included two statements indicating that the scope could change (“at this time” etc.). As far as I am aware, there have been no statements from the UCI since March regarding the scope of the hearing. None of this refers to the WADA case, so it’s irrelevant whether or not the UCI brings it forward. Howman has been considerably more pro-plasticizer tests and has made public remarks regarding their use as evidence in such cases. My point is only that it is largely speculative regarding the scope of the hearings. As far as whether or not the test is validated, this too is largely irrelevant for CAS, since in this case it has been mentioned not as an independent test regarding a blood doping charge, but relevant with respect to an explanation for the presence of clenbuterol. Such evidence is relevant to the issue whether sentencing should go beyond strict liability.

It’s not true that the plasticizer test is not reliable. It’s essentially trivial in terms of the underlying methods. There’s now a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating its validity and application to sports drug testing:

Solymos, E, et al. "Rapid determination of urinary di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate metabolites based on liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry as a marker for blood transfusion in sports drug testing." Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry (2010)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
master racer,

firstly, you dont have to capitalize python. i'm ok with the lower case letters.

secondly, you used this word 'irrelevant' a lot yet failed to grasp what's really relevant - a complete lack of hard evidence as to what wada brought up at cas. thus you have provided hard evidence that it's your opinion (you perfectly entitled to) that is irrelevant to the actual case.

thirdly, i'm not sure i'd take your opinion of the science of the plasticizer test (just judging by what you wrote) very seriously. and of course, it's besides the point, that you completely failed to provided hard references that the alleged and supposedly leaked test was ever specifically applied to contador and not to schleck or vdb2 or menchov.
 
What else is Howman supposed to say?

They were prepared to have this hearing now ... but AC has requested more time. Given they delayed in the first place, for justice to be served they must allow AC time to prepare his case, find all relevant evidence etc. Not to do so would be unjust.

Therefore they are now in the position of having to comment on him appearing in a second grand tour since his posative test .... with still no definitive end date to whether or not he should be cleared or banned.

Yes - he can ride, but no - WADA (who obviously beleive that he should be suspended) would prefer that he didnt.

I dont think this is a sign of anything ....
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
python said:
master racer,

firstly, you dont have to capitalize python. i'm ok with the lower case letters.

secondly, you used this word 'irrelevant' a lot yet failed to grasp what's really relevant - a complete lack of hard evidence as to what wada brought up at cas. thus you have provided hard evidence that it's your opinion (you perfectly entitled to) that is irrelevant to the actual case.

thirdly, i'm not sure i'd take your opinion of the science of the plasticizer test (just judging by what you wrote) very seriously. and of course, it's besides the point, that you completely failed to provided hard references that the alleged and supposedly leaked test was ever specifically applied to contador and not to schleck or vdb2 or menchov.

I was in fact pointing out 1) that you have no 'hard evidence' regarding the scope of the UCI's case, 2) no one knows the scope of the hearing because no one is privy to the written statements submitted to CAS (please refer to R44.1 of ICAS statutes for details) because they are confidential (R43 of the statutes). Given this, I was speculating - like everyone outside of the arbitration - about the plausible scope of the hearings. Perhaps it gives you pleasure to fantasize that you're somehow in possession of privileged information about the hearings, but the truth is a few public remarks from McQuaid a few months ago does not constitute privileged information. Nor is it particularly reliable regarding the current state of the content of the statement of claim.

Of course, I do not have “hard evidence” regarding the plasticizer tests results on Contador’s sample. However, a cited source in the New York Times isn’t exactly the evidential equivalent of internet chatter. Go ahead and file a libel suit against the NYT if their claim doesn’t live up to your evidential standards (for an internet forum). I’ll say this much: if the report is accurate, it is especially troubling since it would be strongly indicative of a recent transfusion (see the paper I cited). To remind you – that’s a conditional statement – please bear in mind the antecedent.

Regarding the plasticizer test, if you take the time to read the paper I referenced, you'll see that the methodology itself is straightforward. It is outside of my area of scientific expertise, but the methodology is straightforward. As the authors state, “a straight forward, rapid and reliable assay is presented for the quantification of the main metabolites mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate, mono(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl) phthalate and mono (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate that can easily be implemented into existing multi-target methods used for sports drug testing.”