UCI appeals Contador decision

[Benotti69]

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.

so do you think mcquaid is taking this to CAS in order that Contador get's off to set a precendent of having the UCI to prove the rider's doping?

 

[Skandar Akbar]

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?

Yes it is extremely unlikely it is tainted meat for reasons discussed. Yes people win lotteries but looking at this situation, in its totality, instead of just reducing it to tainted meat then it becomes outlandish imo.

I am no lawyer obviously. We do not know what was presented other than leaks and assumptions. I have put forth why the uci has to do nothing other than debunk the tainted meat theory, and I am assuming this is ACs defense. If they used the biopassport to prove his innocence along with that then I would argue how that is irrelevant and present the passport is only one tool to combat doping. Again I do not think this should be important but what do I know. I do not like the biopassport being used in this manner because the precedence is there that anybody can argue an aaf if their passport is in order. And it can be manipulated as the le equipe article states.

The rule is zero threshold unless the rider proves likelihood he got it inadvertantly. The rule does not say to weakly show contamination to your corupt rfec then send uci on wild goose chases and you win. I don't think he proved contamination using logic I have put forth. Do you?

Btw I see the translated italian article supports my position. I would say scoreboard but it is all speculation right now. Good day.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

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.

They have been arguing the uci does have to argue the biopassport. I have been arging they do not, and should just argue contamination is unlikely. This is exactly what you claim the article says.

I do not know what you are saying about spelling but you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument. That is called trolling.

 

[Speedzero]

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 think that overstates the burden of proof that the UCI would face if Contador wins.

Contador's team acknowledged that contamination was unlikely but argued that, given Contador's biopassport, a transfusion was even more unlikely. The RFEC, believe it or not, agreed with this argument.

To prevail, the UCI should only have to convince the CAS that Contador's claim is not true: transfusion is more likely than contamination, even with Contador's allegedly squeaky clean biopassport. The UCI would not have to prove that there was a transfusion, or even that a transfusion was very likely: just more likely than a contamination. I am speculating that for political reasons, the UCI is going to punt on what (IMHO) should be a winning argument for them.

To profit from a Contador victory (if there is one), the next rider to come along would have to (1) have a positive that, at least with some degree of plausibility, could be explained by contamination and (2) persuade the deciding body that all alternate explanations for the presence of teh banned substance were more unlikely than contamination.

 

[Speedzero]

They have been arguing the uci does have to argue the biopassport. I have been arging they do not, and should just argue contamination is unlikely. This is exactly what you claim the article says.

There is a difference between (1) what the UCI needs to argue if they want to win and (2) what the UCI intends to argue, whether for political or other reasons. You either cannot understand this or are refusing to understand this in order to troll. Either way, welcome to my ignore list.

... pubicus and jg...

I do not know what you are saying about spelling ...

Uh-huh. Same response.

 

[Andynonomous]

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). .

We have been over these arguments over and over. They won't become valid by repeating them ad-nauseum.

Ovtcharov, and Richard Gasquet (tennis player who tested positive for cocaine) both took hair tests to almost ensure they were not long term users. Contador did not. Just because all "defendents" claimed contamination does not mean that everyone who claims contamination should be believed. Contador's claim is MUCH weaker than Ovtcharov, and somewhat weaker than Gasquet's (who SHOULD have been sanctioned anyway).

 

[Hugh Januss]

I don't care to look back through all the posts to verify, but I think Skandar just won a prize for being first one today to accuse someone of trolling. Bravo!

 

[GJB123]

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'.

As Python pointed out (if you would have acred to read it), it's the same newspaper confirming it's own rumor.

Furthermore it was you saying that there IS a test and that Publicus and I just didn't accept that. Is comprehensive reading of your own post even too much to ask? Shall I quote you?

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.

And all that from a newspaper.

Regards
GJ

 

[patricknd]

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.

sorry about the dog thing. i hope you're over it now, as they do make wonderful pets.

 

[GJB123]

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.

I hope Sniper isn't sobbing like a little baby somewhere in a dark corner.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

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 think the chances of Cera-contamination are truly next to nothing. It's a defense that will only be brought when we actually now that accidental ingestion might happen through contamination.

Regards
GJ

 

[Skandar Akbar]

I don't care to look back through all the posts to verify, but I think Skandar just won a prize for being first one today to accuse someone of trolling. Bravo!

Yes and now he want to argue over what the meaning of is is and puts me on ignore so his brain will not have to defend himself over his upsidedownism. I get whiplash when I read his post and have to check if paint thinner fumes are not seeping into the house from the garage.

At least important forum members like you, patrick, and cobblestoned do not put me on ignore. Thank you for being my friend in my current time of need.

 

[GJB123]

We have been over these arguments over and over. They won't become valid by repeating them ad-nauseum.

Ovtcharov, and Richard Gasquet (tennis player who tested positive for cocaine) both took hair tests to almost ensure they were not long term users. Contador did not. Just because all "defendents" claimed contamination does not mean that everyone who claims contamination should be believed. Contador's claim is MUCH weaker than Ovtcharov, and somewhat weaker than Gasquet's (who SHOULD have been sanctioned anyway).

We have been over and over it, and the difference is also that Ovtacharov didn't have a gazillion negative tests in the days just before the positive finding.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

We have been over and over it, and the difference is also that Ovtacharov didn't have a gazillion negative tests in the days just before the positive finding.

Regards
GJ

exactly, so these are different cases.

 

[DirtyWorks]

so do you think mcquaid is taking this to CAS in order that Contador get's off to set a precendent of having the UCI to prove the rider's doping?

I'm convinced that the short-term goal is a Schlecklette - Pharmador TdF. Beyond that, Pat's skulduggery is much greater than my own capabilities.

If a reader starts with the premise that Pat only views cycling and success through the lens of making more money, then I think shifting the burden of proof to an under-funded international federation is a welcome consequence.

Is that exactly how/why it's going to happen? It's impossible for me to know way out here in the cheap seats.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm convinced that the short-term goal is a Schlecklette - Pharmador TdF. Beyond that, Pat's skulduggery is much greater than my own capabilities.

If a reader starts with the premise that Pat only views cycling and success through the lens of making more money, then I think shifting the burden of proof to an under-funded international federation is a welcome consequence.

Is that exactly how/why it's going to happen? It's impossible for me to know way out here in the cheap seats.

With UCI it is very hard to know what's going on except for lining their (Pat and Hein) own pockets.

PS if any cheap sets become available let me know

 

[hrotha]

So the UCI is saying the plasticizers stuff is just journalistic speculation? Uh, aren't they supposed to know whether the info published in L'Equipe is true or not? Why talk about speculation if you can simply say "the info is false"? To me it seems like the info is true but it wouldn't be legal to bring it up during the trial, because, again, it's not a validated test yet.

 

[skidmark]

With UCI it is very hard to know what's going on except for lining their (Pat and Hein) own pockets.

PS if any cheap sets become available let me know

I remember back after Landis tested positive and after Rasmussen was not prevented from riding the tour by the UCI or Danish federation, there was talk that the UCI, in it's war against the ASO, was trying to devalue the Tour (possibly for Hein and Lance to buy it). I wonder if the timing of the appeal has anything to do with some kind of lingering issue with the Tour, as if this case is not solved by the start of the Tour all hell could break loose and it would be a PR nightmare for the Tour.

 

[ferryman]

So the UCI is saying the plasticizers stuff is just journalistic speculation? Uh, aren't they supposed to know whether the info published in L'Equipe is true or not? Why talk about speculation if you can simply say "the info is false"? To me it seems like the info is true but it wouldn't be legal to bring it up during the trial, because, again, it's not a validated test yet.

And because it has not been included in ANY official documentation relating to the Contador case. It IS only tabloid speculation and will not and can't have any bearing on CAS's review of the Spanish ruling.

 

[webvan]

I remember back after Landis tested positive and after Rasmussen was not prevented from riding the tour by the UCI or Danish federation, there was talk that the UCI, in it's war against the ASO, was trying to devalue the Tour (possibly for Hein and Lance to buy it). I wonder if the timing of the appeal has anything to do with some kind of lingering issue with the Tour, as if this case is not solved by the start of the Tour all hell could break loose and it would be a PR nightmare for the Tour.

That's a thought, clearly this needs to be out of the way before the beginning of the TDF. I suppose that if Bertie loses out he'll be suspended if he appeals so that would be taken care of too. The Giro won't be so lucky though. I hope Bertie does the right thing and doesn't participate...wishful thinking of course.

 

[Merckx index]

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.

Doesn’t by any means mean that DEHP results will be used, but that passage to my eyes sure looks like a step up from “it’s only a rumor” or “they will not and cannot use this test”. At the very least, no one from either side has jumped in to deny this vicious rumor.

Actually, a lot could hinge on the meaning of "may". In American English, at least, "may" and "might" are often used interchangeably, but they can have very different meanings. "Might" refers to possibility, as in "it is possible that the DEHP test could be used". Not a very significant statement. But "may" refers to permission, as in "the DEHP test will be allowed". Probably the above passage used might in the common, conflationary sense, but if it didn't, the passage would become very significant.

But then again, a passage like this is sure to sell papers. We shall see.

The sequence of events that UCI and WADA experts could put forward, according to L’Equipe, is as follows: on the eve of the positive test for clenbuterol, Contador administered a blood transfusion.
Several hours later, noticing that his blood values had changed and mindful that he faced further testing, he would have transfused blood serum to bring the values into line with his biological passport. It was this serum, surmises L’Equipe, that contained the traces of clenbuterol.

Why would CB be more likely to be found in serum than in the original blood transfusion? Only if the assumption is that Bert used frozen cells, and kept the plasma, rather than just using saline or albumin to dilute. Possible, but not very likely. I think the hypothesis that he transfused whole blood contaminated with CB is more plausible, though this new notion could be significant if strong evidence emerged against a withdrawal in June.

Depending on the sources of this statement, it could suggest the prosecution is considering transfusion very thoroughly, taking into account not only that with whole blood, but also the possibility that withdrawals were made in the offseason, and cells separated and frozen for later in-season transfusion. But unless some evidence we don't know about seriously damages the whole blood transfusion theory, I don't see how this would be very relevant to the case. Maybe they are just covering every possible eventuality.

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).

That’s actually a great argument for Floyd, too bad you weren’t around, Publicus, to make it when he needed it:

I think that last point is the one hurdle that most folks can’t get over. In their mind it is impossible to test three oo/oo units above the controls unless you used synthetic testosterone. In reality, it’s improbable but it does in fact happen (however infrequently).

Actually, this is not a good analogy, because the possibility of an innocent rider testing three oo/oo units above controls in the IRMC is actually far greater than the possibility of a random meat sample in Spain being contaminated with CB.

Floyd, of course, was convicted, because the evidence was well within the “between preponderance and beyond reasonable doubt” standard that WADA is supposed to use. That the meat Bert ate was clean is so far beyond reasonable doubt that that phrase is inadequate to express the likelihood of contamination.

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???

Again, you are confusing a converse with a contra positive; they are not the same logically. A certain gel pattern in an EPO test is considered proof of doping; the absence of that pattern is by no means considered proof of not doping.

I know that you, GJB and I have been to the mat a lot on this issue, with GJ, at least, saying that he does not necessarily believe Bert is innocent, but does think UCI will have a hard time arguing that its passport baby is inadequate to catch dopers. But remember that virtually all doping tests (or other medical tests, for that matter) have to strike a balance between false positives and false negatives. Generally speaking, you reduce the incidence of the one only by increasing the incidence of the other. Given the paramount belief that false positives must be minimized, this virtually guarantees that any doping test is going to have a substantial number of false negatives.

This is just reality; there is nothing anyone can do about it. For UCI or WADA to point this out should not, for anyone who understands these tests, undermine the passport system.

In fact, it now occurs to me that this could provide another explanation for that contaminated serum theory. If Bert is alleged to have transfused whole blood, the notion of regular withdrawals and transfusions may (or might!) come up, and it will look worse for the passport system to argue he could have been doing this over an extended period of time with no abnormalities. Again, it's well known how he could do this, but some have argued that UCI doesn't want to admit this.

Using the contaminated serum theory allows one to argue that Bert did all his withdrawals in the offseason, maybe at one time, and stored the cells frozen. Therefore, he really wasn't doing anything dodgy the rest of the time, when his passports were negative. Regardless of whether UCI or WADA believes this is the case, it is another strong counter-argument to the notion that a clean passport makes transfusion unlikely.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Just wondering: Isn't the passport is a parameter-based measure so any violations of it are inferred and may not be directly tied to a positive finding of a particular agent, and separate tests are still required to identify specific agents that may be used to enhance performance whether or not a passport violation is triggered?

 

[python]

i find it infinitely amusing how sensible ppl time and again indulge in enormously verbose efforts to develop elaborate theories based on some article’s speculation (or their own bovine pharmacokinetics theories transposed onto humans) but those that suit the desired outcome. And then the same reasonable ppl completely ignore an actual black and white, absolute, clear statements from an actual physical person speaking to cameras on the very same issue and destroys the above speculation..

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.

we are witnessing a play, a game a fight.. whatever your perspective is fine with me.

why not to let the events and actors settle themselves and let the chip fall wherever they may ?

personally i find it much more interesting just to watch than screaming at actors from a spectator’s row each time they said something i didn’t want to hear.

 

[Benotti69]

I remember back after Landis tested positive and after Rasmussen was not prevented from riding the tour by the UCI or Danish federation, there was talk that the UCI, in it's war against the ASO, was trying to devalue the Tour (possibly for Hein and Lance to buy it). I wonder if the timing of the appeal has anything to do with some kind of lingering issue with the Tour, as if this case is not solved by the start of the Tour all hell could break loose and it would be a PR nightmare for the Tour.

the more layers are revealed to the corruption of the organisations the more layers we see are still yet to be revealed. webs within webs within webs....

 

[sniper]

i find it infinitely amusing how sensible ppl time and again indulge in enormously verbose efforts to develop elaborate theories based on some article’s speculation (or their own bovine pharmacokinetics theories transposed onto humans) but those that suit the desired outcome. And then the same reasonable ppl completely ignore an actual black and white, absolute, clear statements from an actual physical person speaking to cameras on the very same issue and destroys the above speculation..



we are witnessing a play, a game a fight.. whatever your perspective is fine with me.

why not to let the events and actors settle themselves and let the chip fall wherever they may ?

personally i find it much more interesting just to watch than screaming at actors from a spectator’s row each time they said something i didn’t want to hear.

I agree. but
was l'equipe wrong when it dealt with armstrong's 1999 samples? no.
why would l'equipe be wrong now?
they have a reputation to keep in this respect.
my speculative guess is that the article is not based on speculation.
it may not happen the way l'equipe says, but those around here still asking for proof for a posivitive-AC-plasticizer-test should take a crash course "connecting dots".

remember also that l'equipe received a gag order for claims they made regarding connections between FC Barca and some guy called Fuentes. again, they probably weren't far beside the truth there.