UCI appeals Contador decision

[Mrs John Murphy]

But surely under-strict liability, Dertie has to prove that the clen came into his system from the beef. Not that the UCI has to prove that the clen is the result of a transfusion etc.

So far Dertie has produced nothing - just a story. No receipt, no paper trail etc.

In all the cases where people have been cleared it has been outside Europe (Mexico and China) where the tracking system for meat is less stringent than in Europe.

 

[Publicus]

But surely under-strict liability, Dertie has to prove that the clen came into his system from the beef. Not that the UCI has to prove that the clen is the result of a transfusion etc.

So far Dertie has produced nothing - just a story. No receipt, no paper trail etc.

In all the cases where people have been cleared it has been outside Europe (Mexico and China) where the tracking system for meat is less stringent than in Europe.

Bertie met his burden at RFEC. UCI is appealing that decision so they have to basically prove there was error in his science/argument.

And AC has produced the same type of evidence that was produced in every other clen test--in none of the cases did anyone produce the actual tainted meat. The only difference, as you correctly note, is that his incident occurred in the EU which has a more stringent testing regime.

 

[**Uru**]

Pat's comments that they appealed because of the appearance of political pressure in Spain is the worst reason to appeal that I have ever heard. As I understand it, Bertie got off due to a UCI doping regulation that states something to the effect that a rider shall not serve a suspension for a doping positive if the substance in question was not knowingly ingested and did not provide any performance advantage (paraphrasing). There is another reg. that says that a rider shall serve as little as half a suspension if they are shown to ingest a banned substance without their knowledge. This second reg. is the one most commonly deployed in similar cases but it seems the first one is at the core of the issue. Bertie got off using the very rules that UCI wrote.

Seems to me, the real reason for an appeal should be that the UCI does not agree that Bertie unknowingly took the drug or that it gave no performance benefit. Whether the Spanish political leadership weighs in or not seems beside the point to me.

 

[spalco]

But surely under-strict liability, Dertie has to prove that the clen came into his system from the beef. Not that the UCI has to prove that the clen is the result of a transfusion etc.

Yes, but it's a pretty convincing argument that if there is no discernible performance-enhancing effect to the clenbuterol in Contador's body at that point and if there is no reasonable theory how the clenbuterol could have gotten into his body as a byproduct of some other doping method (the transfusion theory), accidental ingestion without intention of doping seems like a probable explanation.

It's not proof, and I don't know if it's enough to get around "strict liablity" but it's a strong argument imo, and I'm saying that as somebody who really doesn't like Contador and who's convinced he's as dirty as anyone can be regardless of the outcome of this trial.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

They actually have a pretty difficult case since they have to prove that it was a blood transfusion, microdosing or some other method other than contamination. Without the plasticizers test, I don't think they can meet that burden.

Why do they have to prove what you say? The rule is zero tolerance, not zero tolerance plus plastic test, empty blood bag in garbage, etc. AC must do the proving here and his case is weak imo. If he gets off then include cas in the pile of corruption.

Yes they want it resolved quickly. That is why they wait until the last day to appeal yeah right lol. They already knew his defense so this is all bs about taking so long. And if what mcquaid said is true then why not appeal the first day since it was known before spanish fed decision that politicians pressured? Him saying that is easy to pick apart by a good journalist with follow up instead of somebody that just writes down quotes. I am stupid yet I can see through this joke he is talking.

This whole thing is a circus full of bs from threshold, more sensitive labs than others, to weak defense to idiots making unquestioned statements in the sycophant press.

 

[roundabout]

I'm not overlooking anything. I'm not one to read facts into situations that don't exist. WADA has played its cards pretty close to the vest, so I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they forced the UCI to do anything. What's your proof that that is the case?

Basic reading of my previous posts should be enough. Secondly, the word "suspect" must have gone straight over your lawyer head so that now you're demanding proof and claiming that i'm reading "facts" (sic). Pull that one on someone else, ok?

 

[Publicus]

Why do they have to prove what you say? The rule is zero tolerance, not zero tolerance plus plastic test, empty blood bag in garbage, etc. AC must do the proving here and his case is weak imo. If he gets off then include cas in the pile of corruption.

Yes they want it resolved quickly. That is why they wait until the last day to appeal yeah right lol. They already knew his defense so this is all bs about taking so long. And if what mcquaid said is true then why not appeal the first day since it was known before spanish fed decision that politicians pressured? Him saying that is easy to pick apart by a good journalist with follow up instead of somebody that just writes down quotes. I am stupid yet I can see through this joke he is talking.

This whole thing is a circus full of bs from threshold, more sensitive labs than others, to weak defense to idiots making unquestioned statements in the sycophant press.

They are APPEALING RFEC's decision. To prevail they have to establish error on RFEC's part (interpretation, etc.) or disprove some component of AC's case. The UCI will file its brief in a few days to establish that this is a doping case, and then AC gets 20+ days to respond.

 

[Publicus]

*** deleted by mod ***

 

[roundabout]

*** deleted by mod ****

 

[peloton]

According to L’Equipe, heightened levels of plasticizers were found in a sample taken from the then Astana rider the day before his positive test for clenbuterol. An illegal blood transfusion is one of the possibilities, reports the newspaper.

L’Equipe says that while Contador’s biological passport was perfectly in order during the Tour, there had been fluctuations in his haemoglobin levels in the preceding months, which could be explained by use of EPO or illegal blood transfusions.

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.

http://road.cc/node/33742

 

[GJB123]

Right, calling you out on your inability to comprehend hurts your wittle feelings.

Moehaha, feeble, very feeble.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Roundabout and Publicus, stop it now.

Susan

 

[Publicus]

http://road.cc/node/33742

Interesting read. Good luck proving that though.

 

[sniper]

http://road.cc/node/33742

now this is good stuff.
AC's plasticizer-positive apparently exists, regardless of the legal implications.
But seeing that confirmed is really little surprising to most of us out here, with some exceptions.

I don't think it exists actually. If they had it, they would have introduced as part of the original dossier as circumstantial evidence. The fact that they did not is what leads me to that conclusion that it doesn't actually exist.

And by it, I mean a test conducted on AC's urine, not that the particular test does not exist.

still think so?

 

[sometriguy]

now this is new stuff.

publicus?

Pretty sure if they had this information, it would be a completely new case. Which means they would start from the beginning with a new case to RFEC.

I think it has no bearing on this case.

Basically, if they were going that route, they already would have.... there is no way it is going to happen.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

They are APPEALING RFEC's decision. To prevail they have to establish error on RFEC's part (interpretation, etc.) or disprove some component of AC's case. The UCI will file its brief in a few days to establish that this is a doping case, and then AC gets 20+ days to respond.

You say they will have a hard time because they don't have the things you list. I say that is irrelevant if they just supply statistical info on lack of likelihood it was contaminated meat in Spain, along with if they choose likelihood threoretical argument of a transfusion. Also the lack of ac doing things to prove his innocence like hair test and testing of other random meat from the butcher. And finally zero threshold to top the cake.

If what you say is true that they have to rebut all whacky theories accepted by the rfec with smoking guns as you describe then this appeal process is a wild activity indeed. All athlete should appeal every fail test if the uci has to have a laundry list of proof other than the aaf to respond to whacky defense theory.

 

[spalco]

Pretty sure if they had this information, it would be a completely new case. Which means they would start from the beginning with a new case to RFEC.

I think it has no bearing on this case.

Basically, if they were going that route, they already would have.... there is no way it is going to happen.

No it's not a new case, it's crucial to explaining how the clenbuterol got into his body by way of doping instead of steak.

 

[GJB123]

You say they will have a hard time because they don't have the things you list. I say that is irrelevant if they just supply statistical info on lack of likelihood it was contaminated meat in Spain, along with if they choose likelihood threoretical argument of a transfusion. Also the lack of ac doing things to prove his innocence like hair test and testing of other random meat from the butcher. And finally zero threshold to top the cake.

If what you say is true that they have to rebut all whacky theories accepted by the rfec with smoking guns as you describe then this appeal process is a wild activity indeed. All athlete should appeal every fail test if the uci has to have a laundry list of proof other than the aaf to respond to whacky defense theory.

Yes, we cab do this one again also. Please read the 150 pages or so of "Contador acquitted"-thread and I am sure you will be able to find that you haven't quite grasped this case. Good luck!

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

now this is new stuff, though little surprising to most out here.
AC's plasticizer-positive exists, regardless of the legal implications.



still think so?

This is proof that it exists?

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.

Let's just wait and see what UCI or WADA come up with.

Regards
GJ

 

[Publicus]

now this is new stuff, though little surprising to most out here.
AC's plasticizer-positive exists, regardless of the legal implications.



I guess this says a lot about your intuition: don't trust it.

It doesn't say what you think it says. The article implies that the UCI provided the results to RFEC but that they didnt comment on it in their decision. But what we know from AC's team is that there was no mention of it in the original dossier forwarded by the UCI. It would be, by far, their most important piece of evidence, so why hold it back?

NoW we have L'Equipe arguing that (1) there were fluctuations in his biopassport that suggests EPO doping and (2) upon noticing the fluctuations he
used tainted serum to smooth out his numbers. On it's face it seems a stretch but I can see it gaining real traction here. Saying it in a paper is differed than proving it in a quasi-judicial setting.

 

[Speedzero]

the phantom test

now this is new stuff, though little surprising to most out here.
AC's plasticizer-positive exists, regardless of the legal implications.

Maybe.

Here's one possibility that occurs to me. Suppose there was a plasticizer test done on AC's sample, done on an experimental basis by the lab, as part of the work of refining and validating the test. Sort of like the after-the-fact research tests done on the 1999 Tour samples (also made famous by l'Equipe, by the way). Because the test was done on an experimental basis, the results were *not* officially passed on to the anti-doping agencies. However, they were leaked to the press by someone connected with the lab.

This theory would explain both the rumors of, and press references to, the plasticizer test, and also the absence of any reference to a plasticizer test in the legal proceedings. If this theory is right, it also means that, for the same reason, there will not be any reference to, or reliance on, a plasticizer test in the CAS proceedings.

 

[Publicus]

Pretty sure if they had this information, it would be a completely new case. Which means they would start from the beginning with a new case to RFEC.

I think it has no bearing on this case.

Basically, if they were going that route, they already would have.... there is no way it is going to happen.

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.

 

[Publicus]

Maybe.

Here's one possibility that occurs to me. Suppose there was a plasticizer test done on AC's sample, done on an experimental basis by the lab, as part of the work of refining and validating the test. Sort of like the after-the-fact research tests done on the 1999 Tour samples (also made famous by l'Equipe, by the way). Because the test was done on an experimental basis, the results were *not* officially passed on to the anti-doping agencies. However, they were leaked to the press by someone connected with the lab.

This theory would explain both the rumors of, and press references to, the plasticizer test, and also the absence of any reference to a plasticizer test in the legal proceedings. If this theory is right, it also means that, for the same reason, there will not be any reference to, or reliance on, a plasticizer test in the CAS proceedings.

That sounds very plausible.

 

[Speedzero]

Now we have L'Equipe arguing that (1) there were fluctuations in his biopassport that suggests EPO doping and (2) upon noticing the fluctuations he
used tainted serum to smooth out his numbers.

I wish we could see the reports commissioned by Contador that were referenced in the RFEC report. It certainly seems that Contador and his team think that his biopassport is squeaky clean.

I am going to go on record here with a prediction that the CAS will uphold the RFEC decision. 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.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Yes, we cab do this one again also. Please read the 150 pages or so of "Contador acquitted"-thread and I am sure you will be able to find that you haven't quite grasped this case. Good luck!

Regards
GJ

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.