UCI appeals Contador decision

[**Uru**]

As I understand it, there is no evidence about a plasticizer test in the current case against Contador. I am not familiar with how the CAS is structured but how could the UCI or WADA appeal the case by introducing evidence for actions that were not in the original case? The current case is about Clen, not plasticizers. If the UCI has a case for plasticizers, then it seems to me they need to send it back to Spain to adjudicate seperately.

 

[webvan]

Abnormalities got Pelli in a bind, maybe AC was under review like Pelli was at one point, and it's most likely that these very abnormalities had him targetted during the tour and they sent his samples to this super dooper lab.

I'm surprised AC and his henchmen haven't threatened L'Equipe with a lawsuit yet lke they threatened Humo...what's up with that? Because ASO owns L'Equipe maybe? Obviously more is known by "thos in the know" than has already been published/leaked and someone's making sure it's put on the table one way or another.

 

[sniper]

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?



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.

Where do I say it is proof?
Indeed, nowhere.

At least now there is a great likelihood that there is such a thing as an AC-plasticizer-positive. In fact, this likelihood was always there, but just not for you to see.

It's when we are tempted to say things like 'take off the blinders' or 'connect the dots'.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Yeah, I guess I have same question as Spalco. I mean, how would UCI prevailing be bad for Paddy? Unless you mean Paddy really didn't WANT to appeal to CAS and only did so out of obligation... but that does not make sense either with all the water that's past under the bridge.

It makes sense if we assume WADA was going to appeal on their own if necessary.

Well, I see your point.
But then I still don't understand how UCI prevailing in the appeal be bad for McQuaid. I'm a little

 

[peloton]

APPEAL OFFICIALLY REGISTERED BY CAS

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well, I see your point.
But then I still don't understand how UCI prevailing in the appeal be bad for McQuaid. I'm a little

TdF w/Schlecklet vs Clentador > TdF w/Schlecklet vs ?

From the way the CN story with McQuaid reads to me it seems he wants to put on a good show of disputing the Spanish feds finding, but ultimately loose and get AC into the TdF.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Something really needs to be done to streamline the whole suspension and appeal process. Ideally it would be a process that would allow doping cases to be resolved at worst by the end of the following off-season, avoiding these uncomfortable situations like with the Valverde and Contador cases where the rider still facing a potential sanction continues to race. The amount of foot dragging and delays by both sides in the Contador case has been embarrassing. There has to be a way of streamlining the process while still ensuring that enough time is taken to gather and review the evidence and provide a fair hearing for the rider.

I agree, the process is way too slow. One way to streamline would be as suggested below by webvan...

Yeah, on the other hand if the cheaters who get caught didn't appeal to try to evade their suspension on a technicality that would help too wouldn't it?

...to avoid the rider appeal process. Or maybe even the B-sample process. But the riders need some protection. So I don't see either of those as viable. One thing that strikes me is that it seems that too many days lapse before certain actions occur. Like 30 days for the UCI to appeal to CAS following RFEC's reversal of the Conti ban, as just one example.

 

[Lanark]

APPEAL OFFICIALLY REGISTERED BY CAS

Most important part: The CAS Secretary General has informed the parties that the CAS would be ready to establish a procedural calendar allowing for the settlement of the dispute before the end of June 2011.


It seems like CAS is well aware of the importance of settling this issue before the Tour.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

TdF w/Schlecklet vs Clentador > TdF w/Schlecklet vs ?

That does make very good sense. I guess I didn't consider that possibility because I viewed Paddy's concern from a totally clinical sense, as opposed to Paddy really being interested in cycling.

 

[peloton]

Anyone here speak Italian?

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=37258&tp=n

Googled:

Carpani: If Contador will not talk about transfusions

Contador on the case and everything you're saying the opposite. The spokesman for the UCI has given a few points of each other to tuttobiciweb: "It is entirely inaccurate and misleading to suggest that the UCI will support the hypothesis of a possible transfusion: in fact, I can assure you that this eventuality is not absolutely necessary in the analysis , and therefore, beyond the speculation advanced insistently Equipe newspaper, will be made no reference during the trial. It seemed very important to point out, as seems quite risky to attribute to McQuaid, the decision to appeal, as is the result of a collective decision of the UCI. "

 

[Hugh Januss]

That does make very good sense. I guess I didn't consider that possibility because I viewed Paddy's concern from a totally clinical sense, as opposed to Paddy really being interested in money.

I took the liberty of correcting that for you.

 

[Polish]

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

Yes, at first blush this seems to be yet another case of SSDD.
The day being today and the SS being published by L'equipe...

However, a careful analysis reveals that L'Equipe is suggesting something new and sinister in addition to the simple rest day transfusion meant to rejuvinate and aid in recovery.

L'Equipe is suggesting Bio Passport manipulation. Shooting up serum to get some out of kilter readings back into kilter....

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.
Layers and layers of deception.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

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

I'm sorry I did not read through all that thread. I was probably under emotional trauma at the time due to being banned and having to defend myself so even if I did read it I probably would not have understood. Thank you for summarizing it for me. One time when I was little I saw some dogs doing stuff I had never seen before and I was so traumatized I walked into an electric fence.

It does seem to me he would have used a hair test to bolster his defense so I'm sorry I don't get the "we got the science screw all else" theory. I think they didn't do the hair test because they didn't want to see the results.

One couple of questions if you don't mind: did the same lab test for clen the days before the rest day? Do they take readings for the biopassport daily for all riders in a gt? Thank you.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yes, at first blush this seems to be yet another case of SSDD.
The day being today and the SS being published by L'equipe...

However, a careful analysis reveals that L'Equipe is suggesting something new and sinister in addition to the simple rest day transfusion meant to rejuvinate and aid in recovery.

L'Equipe is suggesting Bio Passport manipulation. Shooting up serum to get some out of kilter readings back into kilter....

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.
Layers and layers of deception.

Nice to hear from the AC/bad LA/good contingent.

 

[hfer07]

Anyone here speak Italian?

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=37258&tp=n

Basically says UCI ins't looking to push/bring the possible "blood transfusion" scenario & will be out of debate, since it seems to be more of a journalistic speculations pushed by L'Equipe than anything else.

 

[Polish]

Nice to hear from the AC/bad LA/good contingent.

Lets get back on topic, Hugh.
And try not to bring Lance into the discussion if possible...

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

That does make very good sense. I guess I didn't consider that possibility because I viewed Paddy's concern from a totally clinical sense, as opposed to Paddy really being interested in cycling.

Originally Posted by on3m@n@rmy
That does make very good sense. I guess I didn't consider that possibility because I viewed Paddy's concern from a totally clinical sense, as opposed to Paddy really being interested in money.

I took the liberty of correcting that for you.

LOL! Good one! (btw - you may be right... I might be crazy... for thinking he had a genuine interest in the sport)

gotta have a little fun... it's Friday.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

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).

Again I am lost why the uci needs to prove where the clen came from only that ac argument is bs about tainted meat. You and I and gj are going round and round here, I understand your point but disagree but I ask gj some questions just now out of curiosity. Let's move on.

I agree it is possible to eat tainted meat in the EU. The odds and coincidence would be astronomical that ac ate tainted meat brought to him from Spain, the only time it is brought from Spain, on that day when it was by chance his pis went to that lab versus the statistics of clen contamination in the EU. This is lottery stuff and totallly unbelievable.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Anyone here speak Italian?

http://www.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=37258&tp=n

Googled:

Carpani: If Contador will not talk about transfusions

Contador on the case and everything you're saying the opposite. The spokesman for the UCI has given a few points of each other to tuttobiciweb: "It is entirely inaccurate and misleading to suggest that the UCI will support the hypothesis of a possible transfusion: in fact, I can assure you that this eventuality is not absolutely necessary in the analysis , and therefore, beyond the speculation advanced insistently Equipe newspaper, will be made no reference during the trial. It seemed very important to point out, as seems quite risky to attribute to McQuaid, the decision to appeal, as is the result of a collective decision of the UCI. "

Huh? Can somebody translate because it seems to support my contention that uci doesn't have to prove where the clen came from, ie a transfusion, as I have been debating with pubicus and jg. We can't have me winning an argument in here.

 

[Publicus]

Again I am lost why the uci needs to prove where the clen came from only that ac argument is bs about tainted meat. You and I and gj are going round and round here, I understand your point but disagree but I ask gj some questions just now out of curiosity. Let's move on.

I agree it is possible to eat tainted meat in the EU. The odds and coincidence would be astronomical that ac ate tainted meat brought to him from Spain, the only time it is brought from Spain, on that day when it was by chance his pis went to that lab versus the statistics of clen contamination in the EU. This is lottery stuff and totallly unbelievable.

It's neither astronomical or the stuff of lotteries. Sometimes sh*t happens. Or do you not believe that?

EDIT: Let me ask a question that may help clarify things: UCI is appealing the RFEC decision. In your view, how do they win the appeal?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Yes, such things happen. But so does doping and transfusions in this sport. Which do you suppose is more likely? Especially as we already know our sport is riddled with massive doping problems over the last two decades, plus there has been no meat found contaminated.

As I said before, if Contador wins this at CAS, it will forever change the precedent for doping standards. Everyone in the future who tests positive for small amounts of anything will use the contamination defense, and demand that the UCI prove otherwise.

 

[DirtyWorks]

TdF w/Schlecklet vs Clentador > TdF w/Schlecklet vs ?

From the way the CN story with McQuaid reads to me it seems he wants to put on a good show of disputing the Spanish feds finding, but ultimately loose and get AC into the TdF.

+1. This is Pat's end game. He'll even follow-up with statements about being disappointed by the CAS decision. Pat and ASO get their headline battle at the TdF, Schleck vs Pharmador. Win-win! You guys go round-and-round with this stuff forgetting it's all about making money off cycling.

Another thing lost in this lengthy thread is the specific nature of the appeal. My limited understanding of the process is that the only set of facts on the table is RFEC's decision.

Unrelated, it would be nice to see the addendums/exhibits get published as a result of the appeal.

 

[Publicus]

Yes, such things happen. But so does doping and transfusions in this sport. Which do you suppose is more likely? Especially as we already know our sport is riddled with massive doping problems over the last two decades, plus there has been no meat found contaminated.

As I said before, if Contador wins this at CAS, it will forever change the precedent for doping standards. Everyone in the future who tests positive for small amounts of anything will use the contamination defense, and demand that the UCI prove otherwise.

I guess it doesn't really much matter which I think is more likely (though I agree with you), it only matters what can be established under the sporting rules at play here. And I don't think the Contador case will be the one that changed doping precedents--they were already changed. Recall that he's advancing a legal theory that has been accepted in a couple of different cases already (Ovtcharov and I forget the one regarding the cocaine via a kiss case). I think the theory only works in very limited contexts, but I'm sure some enterprising lawyer will look for ways to expand its usage going forward.

 

[DirtyWorks]

As I said before, if Contador wins this at CAS, it will forever change the precedent for doping standards. Everyone in the future who tests positive for small amounts of anything will use the contamination defense, and demand that the UCI prove otherwise.

Absolutely. This is the best way to grow the sport.

This allows Pat to package doped racing version 4.0. This version, no absurd super human performances. It's almost as exciting as watching riders on full-on doping programs.

A quick and dirty refresher.

doped racing 1.0 "Pot belge"
doped racing 2.0 EPO killing riders, no EPO test
doped racing 3.0 Test for 'thick blood.' Absurd super-human performances anyway.
doped racing 4.0 micro-dosing/recovery doping, bounded super-human performance.

 

[Speedzero]

Huh? Can somebody translate because it seems to support my contention that uci doesn't have to prove where the clen came from, ie a transfusion, as I have been debating with pubicus and jg. We can't have me winning an argument in here.

To the contrary, the article supports what publicus and GJ (and I) have been saying: it suggests the UCI is not planning to challenge the biopassport argument and, instead, will just keep harping on how unlikely a clen contamination is.

The article says nothing about what the CAS (whose opinion will be the only one that counts) will conclude the UCI needs to do to overturn the RFEC opinion.

Oh: and I know you know how to spell people's names when you want to.