UCI appeals Contador decision

[Cobblestones]

That sounds very plausible.

That's really it.

Now I wonder, if the plasticizer test at one point gets a scientific validation, could old samples be re-tested or the original tests of those samples be used to get an adverse analytical finding?

 

[Publicus]

Ok you guys are right. Since uci has no pix of ac with needle in his arm, empty blood bag, plastic test, etc then that means cas will conclude he ate contaminated meat from Spain.

That's not what we are saying. You are absolutely correct that the burden of proving that he was not doping lies solely with AC. He met that burden in the eyes/mind of RFEC. The UCI is appealing that decision. To prevail on their appeal the UCI has the burden of persuading CAS that either RFEC made an error in apply the law/interpreting data or poking holes in ACs case.

Does it make sense now?

 

[GJB123]

Ok you guys are right. Since uci has no pix of ac with needle in his arm, empty blood bag, plastic test, etc then that means cas will conclude he ate contaminated meat from Spain.

Blablabla.

 

[sniper]

It wouldnt be a new case. CAS can hear new facts that were not available when the original matter was heard. That being said, CAS would like refer the matter BACK to RFEC to reconsider the matter in light of the new evidence. At least that would be the fairest result, but that's a speculation on top of a supposition, so I wouldn't put much stock in it.

I agree with your posts almost a 100% of the times.

My point was more generally directed to those who've been saying AC's plasticizer positive is fiction. We can be quite sure that it's not.

Then again, it may have zero legal implications, that's something else.

 

[Cobblestones]

I think you and/or GJ have pointed out elsewhere that the UCI's best argument against the particular defense mounted by Contador would be to point out that a clean biopassport does not disprove blood doping. For better or worse, I don't think UCI will be willing to stand up and make that argument with any conviction. (WADA, maybe.) They have too much invested in the biopassport and they will be worried about how such an attack on the biopassport could come back to bite them in future proceedings that they bring based on biopassport irregularities. Accordingly, they will focus their challenge on the odds of a clenbuterol contamination and go down to defeat gracefully.

Now, reasonable people do understand that the blood passport is not 100% effective weeding out blood doping. A conviction has to show beyond any reasonable doubt (or whatever the legal phrase is) that blood doping has taken place. So, in order to minimize the 'false positives', you sacrifice quite a few 'true positives' (which then end up in the 'false negatives' category).

Just because we cannot, beyond any doubt, say that Contador did transfuse, it does not follow that he definitely didn't transfuse. Even lawyers, journalists and PR people should be susceptible to that much logic.

 

[sniper]

I think you and/or GJ have pointed out elsewhere that the UCI's best argument against the particular defense mounted by Contador would be to point out that a clean biopassport does not disprove blood doping. For better or worse, I don't think UCI will be willing to stand up and make that argument with any conviction. (WADA, maybe.) They have too much invested in the biopassport and they will be worried about how such an attack on the biopassport could come back to bite them in future proceedings that they bring based on biopassport irregularities. Accordingly, they will focus their challenge on the odds of a clenbuterol contamination and go down to defeat gracefully.

to be sure, it was Hrotha who noted that, and Publicus and/or GJB disagreeing with that for as yet unknown reasons.

 

[GJB123]

Now, reasonable people do understand that the blood passport is not 100% effective weeding out blood doping. A conviction has to show beyond any reasonable doubt (or whatever the legal phrase is) that blood doping has taken place. So, in order to minimize the 'false positives', you sacrifice quite a few 'true positives' (which then end up in the 'false negatives' category).

Just because we cannot, beyond any doubt, say that Contador did transfuse, it does not follow that he definitely didn't transfuse. Even lawyers, journalists and PR people should be susceptible to that much logic.

Quite right, but I still don't see the UCI stand in front of a court proceeding stating anything that could be cobstrued as negative towards the blood passport. Bu then again, I could be wrong.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

to be sure, it was Hrotha who noted that, and Publicus and/or GJB disagreeing with that for as yet unknown reasons.

Oh, the reasons are well known for those with any comprehensive reading skills.

Regards
GJ

 

[Skandar Akbar]

That's not what we are saying. You are absolutely correct that the burden of proving that he was not doping lies solely with AC. He met that burden in the eyes/mind of RFEC. The UCI is appealing that decision. To prevail on their appeal the UCI has the burden of persuading CAS that either RFEC made an error in apply the law/interpreting data or poking holes in ACs case.

Does it make sense now?

You specifically wrote uci was in a bind because of no plastic test etc. That is different than saying the uci must rebut his case...his case is he ate contaminated meat, period. Uci must say he didn't and statistically this is easy to argue along with lack of other proof such as hair test or lack of other meat tested positive from this butcher that ac did not provide. Rfec accepted bs argument and let him off. You don't need this other stuff to rebut this argument. Uci didn't say he failed a plastic test or whatever so why this is important in your world is beyond me. Did ac prove he ate contaminated meat? Most of us say no from what has been leaked and that is even discounting the things you list that makes you conclude uci will lose.

Of course I am assuming the uci will make a strong rebuttal along these lines, which may be a big assumption. I already posted upthread how mcquaids statement today is totally bs inre to timeliness of the appeal. From the initial coverup it is obvious the uci doesn't want him to be suspended because that is bad for business. Will wada appeal too as a fallback to potential weak uci rebuttal?

 

[sniper]

Quite right, but I still don't see the UCI stand in front of a court proceeding stating anything that could be cobstrued as negative towards the blood passport. Bu then again, I could be wrong.

Regards
GJ

Again, a positive is positive, but a negative is not a negative.
Taking that as a starting point wouldn't necessarily be bad publicity for the bloodpassport.
It'll be interesting to follow this case, that's for sure.

 

[Speedzero]

to be sure, it was Hrotha who noted that, and Publicus and/or GJB disagreeing with that for as yet unknown reasons.

Then I apologize to each of the three of them.

However, I'm not sure where GJ and I disagree:

For better or worse, I don't think UCI will be willing to stand up and make that argument with any conviction. (WADA, maybe.) They have too much invested in the biopassport and they will be worried about how such an attack on the biopassport could come back to bite them in future proceedings that they bring based on biopassport irregularities.

Quite right, but I still don't see the UCI stand in front of a court proceeding stating anything that could be cobstrued as negative towards the blood passport.

 

[GJB123]

Then I apologize to each of the three of them.

However, I'm not sure where GJ and I disagree:

Actually we don't but trust Sniper's cognitive dissonance to think we do.

Regards
GJ

 

[Dimtick]

Why would they need to do that? WADA has an independent right of appeal, they don't need to force the UCI along. McQuaid's comments are illuminating though.

WADA can't file an appeal on the same grounds as UCI. WADA would have to appeal on something different that would not be a part of any UCI ruling. I have to imagine that UCI and WADA are smart enough to coordinate their attacks so that they can come at things from different directions and not risk interfering with each other.

I sure hope we don't have a situation where AC rides TDF, wins and then has it thrown out after the fact. Even worse have AC pulled during the race. Hopefully CAS is smart enough to make a decision before that so that there aren't any clouds hanging over TDF. Let whoever wins and stands on the podium not have their victory clouded because this was still unreselved (especially if it's AC on the podium).
talk about killing the sport. that would be so much worse for professional cycling than all this crap about race radios.

 

[python]

http://road.cc/node/33742

can someone point me to where's the news in this article and what hasn't been discussed already in the numerous previous threads ?

 

[sniper]

Then I apologize to each of the three of them.

However, I'm not sure where GJ and I disagree:

where did i say anything about you guys disagreeing?

i was merely putting credit where credit is due, and pointing out how posters such as GBJ and others are constantly caught up by the facts.

Now suddenly there is an AC-positive-for-Plasticizers, whereas for a couple of days GBJ and Publicus were dismissing this as an ill-founded rumor. Now suddenly the UCI are going to state before CAS that a negative bloodpassport does not exclude doping, whereas previously GBJ and Publicus were saying such would never happen.
etc.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Interesting article. One thing that caught my eye is it says he had fluctuations in hemoglobine prior to the tour. What is the protocol to warn riders of this since obviously he wasn't if this is true? Or was he? I agree corroborating evidence such as this helps the uci but I just cannot see why it is necessary for a successful appeal. He has not proven the meat was contaminated. Also it rub me wrong that an unapproved test can be submitted as evidence.

 

[sniper]

can someone point me to where's the news in this article and what hasn't been discussed already in the numerous previous threads ?

The news, as far as I can see, lies only in the fact that certain rumors are finding confirmation. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Andynonomous]

Bad publicity for guilty or not guilty ?

It seems that most people here believe that it is bad publicity for Contador to be sanctioned. I believe the opposite.

The bad publicity does not "go away", if the system finds him not guilty. If most people believe Contador doped, and got away with it, pro cycling's reputation will suffer more in my opinion (even most of his adamant defenders admit it is likely he doped).

 

[hfer07]

What bothers me a lot is how Pat is "justifying" the UCI move by saying the RFEC was forced to acquit him for Political reasons UCI is entitled by right to appeal the decision no matter what- but to put those words in a delicate case like this is just beyond any common sense, and truly explains a more personal matter to him to appear good to the sporting community rather than make sense of the case itself. Prudhomme is right when he's asking to "draw a line" where cases like AC's take ridiculous amount of time to get resolved.

 

[GJB123]

where did i say anything about you guys disagreeing?

i was merely putting credit where credit is due, and pointing out how posters such as GBJ and others are constantly caught up by the facts.

Now suddenly there is an AC-positive-for-Plasticizers, whereas for a couple of days GBJ and Publicus were dismissing this as an ill-founded rumor. Now suddenly the UCI are going to state before CAS that a negative bloodpassport does not exclude doping, whereas previously GBJ and Publicus were saying such would never happen.
etc.

You are full of it, aren't you?

How is this proof that there is a plasticzier test, let alone it being used by UCI in front of CAS?

French sports daily L’Equipe has today reported that suggestions of blood doping, based on the detection of plasticizers in his test sample, may form a central part of the UCI’s case against Alberto Contador.

So the fact that a French newspaper is reporting taht an (alleged) test result might be used in a CAS appeal by UCI is definitive proof that it actually exists? Now just explain away why it wasn't used in the case earlier?

I'll repeat, let's just wai and see what they come up with, but I would be willing to bet that whatever UCI and WADA do come up with, it won't be the infamous plasticizer-test.

Regards
GJ


PS my initials are GJB and not GBJ.

 

[GJB123]

The news, as far as I can see, lies only in the fact that certain rumors are finding confirmation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where is the confirmation in that article? Oh wait, comprehensive reading is not one of your many skills is it?

Regards
GJ

 

[python]

The news, as far as I can see, lies only in the fact that certain rumors are finding confirmation. Nothing more, nothing less.

if the newspaper's comments on it's own previous article (about rumours of the DEHP test) is a confirmation then I agree. otoh, the uci or wada commenting on the dehp test would be a visious rumour, right ?

 

[GJB123]

Interesting article. One thing that caught my eye is it says he had fluctuations in hemoglobine prior to the tour. What is the protocol to warn riders of this since obviously he wasn't if this is true? Or was he? I agree corroborating evidence such as this helps the uci but I just cannot see why it is necessary for a successful appeal. He has not proven the meat was contaminated. Also it rub me wrong that an unapproved test can be submitted as evidence.

That door was well and truly opened by WADA and UCI. They suggested that the clen could only have gotten in in 4 ways: contamination, micro dosing, blood transfusion and the remains of a true clen cycle. Micro dosing and and a clen cycle one were factually deemed impossible because of the amount of test the days before and after. That left only a transfusion or contamination.

Since AC could not provide the meat, he had to establish that transfusion was less likely. In that way his case was similar to that of Ovtcharov. The pong player had no other test to rely on so he relied on the hair test. AC could rely on other scientific data to "disprove" transfusion (or so it is calimed by his defense team and accepted by the Spanish federation), hence it must have been contamination. In that respect an adverse finding in a plasticizer test would help WADA/UCI to make the transfusion theory more likely.

This has all been covered extensively in the "Contador acquitted"-thread if you would have taken the trouble of reading it.

Regards
GJ

 

[Publicus]

You specifically wrote uci was in a bind because of no plastic test etc. That is different than saying the uci must rebut his case...his case is he ate contaminated meat, period. Uci must say he didn't and statistically this is easy to argue along with lack of other proof such as hair test or lack of other meat tested positive from this butcher that ac did not provide. Rfec accepted bs argument and let him off. You don't need this other stuff to rebut this argument. Uci didn't say he failed a plastic test or whatever so why this is important in your world is beyond me. Did ac prove he ate contaminated meat? Most of us say no from what has been leaked and that is even discounting the things you list that makes you conclude uci will lose.

Of course I am assuming the uci will make a strong rebuttal along these lines, which may be a big assumption. I already posted upthread how mcquaids statement today is totally bs inre to timeliness of the appeal. From the initial coverup it is obvious the uci doesn't want him to be suspended because that is bad for business. Will wada appeal too as a fallback to potential weak uci rebuttal?

I said that the absence of the plasticizers test puts them in a bind since AC has used his bio-passport/profile to establish that he wasn't transfusing (i.e., normal fluctuations for a GT), they will have to argue that in and of itself is proof of nothing. The problem with that argument, of course, is that they just spent a considerable amount of time proving that abnormal fluctuations ARE sufficient indicators to suggest blood doping and for sanctioning. That's a hard argument to make. Yes your test were negative, but that doesn't mean that you weren't doping. That might pass muster here, it's not a sufficient basis to sanction someone.

As for the lack of tainted meat, if you've been following all of these clen cases, you'll probably realize that NONE of them have produced the tainted meat. They've all relied on the same legal theory: negative drug tests to show that they were not habitual user (in almost every case, a hair test). The only real distinction between AC's case and any of the others is that he was in the EU versus Mexico and China, neither of which has a stringent testing protocol like the EU's. I think that last point is the one hurdle that most folks can't get over. In their mind it is impossible to eat tainted meat in the EU. In reality, it's improbable but it does in fact happen (however in frequently).

 

[Publicus]

where did i say anything about you guys disagreeing?

i was merely putting credit where credit is due, and pointing out how posters such as GBJ and others are constantly caught up by the facts.

Now suddenly there is an AC-positive-for-Plasticizers, whereas for a couple of days GBJ and Publicus were dismissing this as an ill-founded rumor. Now suddenly the UCI are going to state before CAS that a negative bloodpassport does not exclude doping, whereas previously GBJ and Publicus were saying such would never happen.
etc.

Actually what I've said is that despite the allegation neither the UCI or WADA has made an official reference to it. Someone posted probably the most plausible rationale the explains the rumor and the reason it hasn't been introduced in his case. Accepting that rationale to be true, it won't be introduced at CAS either. Which, for purposes of AC's case, means it doesn't exist.

As for the bio-passport part, if the absence of abnormalities isn't proof that he isn't blood doping, then how are abnormalities proof that he is??? The line to be threaded to make that argument without invalidating the entire premise behind the bio-passport is very, very thin. I'm making the calculation, that it is not worth it (not when you have other athletes challenging the validity of the bio-passport). I could be wrong and I'm ok with that. I've got nothing riding on the outcome of this case.