UCI appeals Contador decision

[Merckx index]

i find it infinitely amusing how sensible ppl ocasionally indulge in what are from my point of view enormously verbose efforts to develop reasonable theories based on some article’s report(or published pharmacokinetics) in order to explain the actual facts.

Fixed that for you.

And then the same reasonable ppl completely ignore an actual black and white, absolute, clear statements (sic) from an actual physical person speaking to cameras on the very same issue [which] destroys the above speculation..

Oh, I saw it. I just don't believe it. Do you really believe everything someone said to be representing UCI says? I don't.

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

Even if you find some perspectives infinitely amusing?

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

Since they will, anyway, why not learn something about science while waiting for it to play out?

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.

Each to his own. Personally I find it much more interesting to discuss real science than to believe the pseudo stuff spewed out by many of these actors. And if you think my posts are motivated by what I want to hear, I can only repeat, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[python]

in order to speculate about the self-made facts designed to boost preconceived outcomes

fixed that for you. it has very little to do with science. even if studies about the bovine are published, drawing conclusions about human pharmacology from cows is the same as 'drunk-rat' studies of testosterone in humans.

 

[D-Queued]

fixed that for you. it has very little to do with science. even if studies about the bovine are published, drawing conclusions about human pharmacology from cows is the same as 'drunk-rat' studies of testosterone in humans.

At least there is a possibility that someone will discuss bovine studies at the CAS hearing. The drunken mice, however, were a complete, nonsensical red herring promoted by the absolute desperate fan.

Dave.

 

[webvan]

FatPad gives some explanations...at least according to the title of this VN "article" : http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-justifies-contador-cas-appeal-delay

AFAICT he just says their legal team worked their *** off, other than that he has no idea what's going on, what a tool :

I haven't studied the arguments on both sides, and I don't know what are the elements in the appeal we will be preparing

 

[Merckx index]

fixed that for you. it has very little to do with science. even if studies about the bovine are published, drawing conclusions about human pharmacology from cows is the same as 'drunk-rat' studies of testosterone in humans.

The broken record drones on. As I said twice before, you haven't been paying attention. The major argument for transfusion and against contamination that LMG and I discussed is based entirely on human studies. I did one analysis a while back in which I used some bovine studies, and apparently you still haven't got that out of your head. Not that I take back anything I said then.

I have no idea what this "it" is that "has very little to do with science". I imagine that a great deal of that 600 pages we haven't seen is science. The things I am discussing here are all about science. Of course there are other aspects of the case, including issues that you have helped clarify, but if this case is resolved properly, it will be all about science.

 

[Hugh Januss]

At least there is a possibility that someone will discuss bovine studies at the CAS hearing. The drunken mice, however, were a complete, nonsensical red herring promoted by the absolute desperate fan.

Dave.

Actually it was promoted by a couple guys who just like to wind everyone up especially those who tend to think they are very important and rational.

 

[python]

The broken record drones on. As I said twice... science.

you can say to yourself anything as many times as you wish to argue with or agree with yourself..i wont care. however, be warned, puffing your chest in the name of science every time your preconceived notions get challenged wont fly any longer because i do pay attention and i do respect and practice science too.

cows and drunk mice, as was pointed out to you several times by several scientists on this very forum, are not a good parallel to human professional bike racers. if you insist on your black and white, preconceived conclusions on the basis of such 'science' you will have me in the way. every time. I promise.

finally, you basically discredited your scientific posture by stating that anything short of your understanding of the criteria by which cas should judge the case will be considered by you a fraud.

with this attitude, you should just tell honestly everyone that you are looking for any scientific opportunity to fit the facts to your model and quit pretending. i'd respect that.

 

[Merckx index]

you can say to yourself anything as many times as you wish to argue with or agree with yourself..i wont care. however, be warned, puffing your chest in the name of science every time your preconceived notions get challenged wont fly any longer because i do pay attention and i do respect and practice science too.

What preconceived notions? I argue against conclusions that I think are poorly supported, as an scientist does. I have never been afraid to modify my views if someone presents reasonable argument, as has happened several times here. I actually started out supporting Bert's claim of contamination, so if I had preconceived views, they certainly haven't lasted.

cows and drunk mice, as was pointed out to you several times by several scientists on this very forum, are not a good parallel to human professional bike racers. if you insist on your black and white, preconceived conclusions on the basis of such 'science' you will have me in the way. every time. I promise.

This statement makes me think you didn't even read my previous post, let alone several by LMG. I have posted several very long and fairly detailed analyses of the science behind the case, to which there has been very little response, by you or anyone else. Anyone with the tiniest familiarity with online forums knows that when someone posts something that others are very sure is incorrect, incomplete, or in some other manner deserving of criticism, those others will jump all over it. So when I get mostly silence in response to my posts, I take it no one has any serious criticisms to offer. So far, the most serious criticism you have had is to whine that cattle are not the same as humans. Even beyond the fact that the cattle studies are not essential to the conclusions, this shows me that there is a lot in the discussion you either didn't bother to think about or didn't understand.

finally, you basically discredited your scientific posture by stating that anything short of your understanding of the criteria by which cas should judge the case will be considered by you a fraud.

What I said is that if Bert is cleared on the basis of the arguments/evidence in the RFEC summary report, I would consider that decision a fraud. I am by no means alone in saying that. I also said that I welcomed hearing any substantially new evidence/arguments not in the summary report--though I said before, and continue to maintain, that I doubt such evidence is there. I have also taken the time and trouble to suggest findings that could help Bert.

with this attitude, you should just tell honestly everyone that you are looking for any scientific opportunity to fit the facts to your model and quit pretending. i'd respect that.

I have a model that I'm trying to fit my facts to? What model is that? Every step of the way, I have called this as I see it. As I just said, I have pointed out possible evidence that might persuade me to change my mind, so I don't see how I can possibly be accused of being so attached to a particular conclusion (not model) that I would try to fit all facts to it.

I will just add that the remarks you are making here seem to me are far more applicable to others in this forum, who use very weak logic and arguments to support Bert. I have pointed these out many times before, and will not go over them all again.

 

[python]

What preconceived notions?

are you that blind and deaf ? amazing for someone who claims in every post to be scientific.

just a few posts above you stated categorically, absolutely that you wont trust an official of the agency that's involved in the process stating something in front of cameras that goes against your own beliefs in favour of the newspaper speculation that fits dozens of your your posts. how many more examples of your own closed-mindedness are needed?

it's one thing to state, 'as a scientist i need more information otherwise i'm skeptical, and it's completely revealing of your pretense, to put things so black and white. trust not, it's your business, i don't trust you.

 

[Merckx index]

are you that blind and deaf ? amazing for someone who claims in every post to be scientific.

just a few posts above you stated categorically, absolutely that you wont trust an official of the agency that's involved in the process stating something in front of cameras that goes against your own beliefs in favour of the newspaper speculation that fits dozens of your your posts. how many more examples of your own closed-mindedness are needed?

I said I didn't believe it. Nothing about categorically, absolutely. On the contrary, I said I made it a practice not to believe always (or categorically, absolutely, if you like) anything someone says. I make it a practice not to automatically believe or disbelieve anything.

But the main issue here is not what I believe or don't believe. It's why. Talk about preconceived notions. You seem to have a preconceived notion of me as a biassed scientist, into which you try to fit facts. So when you see me say, I don't believe what this official is saying, you immediately jump to the conclusion that the reason I don't believe it is because it might negate all my carefully constructed arguments for transfusion.

But that isn't the reason I said I don't believe it. The reason I don't believe it is because a) if true, it is inconsistent, as far as I can see, with only three possible approaches by UCI in this case*, none of are possible or permissible as far as I can see; and b) as many were quick to point out when Howman implied a few weeks ago that WADA was going to appeal, one official saying something does not necessarily speak for the entire organization.

Wrt a), it's not a matter of going against my pre-conceived views that Bert transfused. It's a matter of my understanding of the possibilities that WADA set up for RFEC, the four scenarios that have to be addressed. In light of that, this statement about transfusion makes no sense to me at all--not from the point of view of Bert being guilty OR innocent. And if you or anyone else can explain how that statement could be consistent with the four possible scenarios dictated by WADA, I would welcome an explanation. Honestly. I'm very curious.

*Here are the three possibilities as I see them:

1) UCI will pursue one of the two other alternatives to contaminated meat, micro-dosing or contaminated supplement. Because of the negative test the preceding day, there is no possibility of claiming the positive resulted from micro-dosing. Surely we all agree on that. With regard to supplements, my understanding--correct me if I’m wrong--is that Bert is not claiming the possibility of a contaminated supplement. There is a statement in the RFEC report that mentions he was given the same supplements as every other member of his team, and which seems to imply that they were approved and could not have been contaminated. Certainly the whole thrust of his defense, both in the RFEC decision and in public, has been to insist that it was contaminated meat. Given how the statistics overwhelmingly do not support that possibility, wouldn’t you think they would be pushing the contaminated supplement scenario if it were really possible, and if it could be used to get him off? Or do you think UCI knows something Bert doesn’t know?
2) UCI will maintain that the evidence against meat contamination is so strong that they don’t need to provide a plausible alternative. My understanding is that they can’t do this. To insist that meat contamination did not occur is to say in effect that one of the other scenarios must have taken place. Bert can counter by arguing that none of these scenarios is supported by the evidence. So they have to go back and argue for either micro dosing or supplement contamination.
3) UCI has no intention of arguing against Bert. They only took the case to provide greater support for his innocence, as many questioned the impartiality of the RFEC. I think this is very unlikely, and also that it doesn’t seem very consistent with the statement:

I can assure you that this eventuality is not absolutely necessary in the analysis.

If UCI had already decided it was going to buy the contaminated meat story and clear Bert, why would they say that an alternative scenario is “not absolutely necessary”? That statement strongly implies, to me, that they have some other alternative in mind, which again brings us back to micro-dosing or contaminated supplements. If they were planning to support his contaminated meat story, why not say that transfusion “doesn’t explain the facts”, or something along that line?

But maybe I’m wrong about that. Maybe they were reluctant to say anything in public they thought might be suggestive of their plan to acquit Bert. So they really will argue that the meat was contaminated. If this is the case, then this part of the quote could be correct:

It is entirely inaccurate and misleading to suggest that the UCI will support the hypothesis of a possible transfusion.

But if this is really what they’re going to do, they still have to argue against a transfusion. They have to show that this could not account for Bert’s positive. But if that is the case, why would the official go on to say:

and therefore, beyond the speculation advanced insistently Equipe newspaper, will be made no reference during the trial.

My interpretation of this statement is that transfusion won’t even be discussed in the trial. No “reference” to the transfusion hypothesis at all. How can that be, when it is one of the four possibilities that have to be considered?

Maybe this was a poor translation. Maybe what the official really meant was that there would be no reference to the Equipe speculation in the trial, a sort of backhanded way of repeating the message that there would be no support for the hypothesis of transfusion. Fair enough. But it seems a curious way to put it.

In summary, if the transfusion scenario is not to be supported, it seems impossible to believe that UCI could argue effectively against Bert. They could only support his case. But beyond the fact that I don’t think they appealed the case just to do this, the wording of the statement seems at least ambiguous to me. That is one major reason why I don’t find it believable. And to repeat, this conclusion of mine, right or wrong, has nothing at all to do with my views on whether transfusion actually is the likely explanation. I would be very puzzled by this statement regardless of what view I held.

Finally, let’s be very clear about something. I’m not sitting on the panel judging Bert, nor providing any testimony to the case. Nor am I some highly influential columnist with a large readership. I’m just a private citizen posting on a forum that is probably followed by very few people. I have a perfect right to my conclusions. If someone wants to challenge those conclusions, fine, but this bit about “all puffed up” is way over the top. I have much better things to be puffed up about (or be deflated about) than what I post in a forum.

 

[therealtimshady]

this case is a joke. the spanish fed cleared contador so that should be it and he should be allowed to race.

if the UCI are not happy with this then they should have made the decision to ban him themselves (and with all future cases) and not alllow national feds the decision on a punishment.

the UCI are passing the buck and then complaining about the decision to try and claim some credibility

 

[TERMINATOR]

not sure about that, since figure skaters, fencers, cross-word-puzzlers or chess-players are not equally tested for CLEN.

Weightlifters and track and field athletes are. And by the way, you are aware that the concept of employing statistics to compare rates of clenbuterol positives in cycling vs. other sports takes into account their lower sample size, right?

I mean, surely you didn't think I was making an absolute comparison with figure skaters and fencers, did you?

Once you apply statistics, you will find that cyclists have a disproportionately higher clenbuterol positive rate than any other sport...and all those other athletes eat just as much meat as cyclists.

So where do you think that clenbuterol is really coming from?

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.

You are incorrect. CAS will find that Bertie failed to prove where the clenbuterol came from. He produced no sample 'cut of meat' that tested positive.

Once you have an analytical positive the burden is on the athlete to prove it came from contamination. Her failed to do that. CAS has no obligation to accept the RFEC Panel's logic.

Contador is getting 2 years and if you don't know that then you really have no understanding of the WADA Code or how CAS decides these cases. Analytical positives are very difficult to overturn.

Contador has shown ZERO proof other than stories. RFEC are corrupt.

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.

Skandar Akbar is correct. CAS will give Albuterol Clebuterolador 2 years since they know he's just another Spanish blood doper.

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?

RFEC's error is obvious. Contador showed no proof the contamination came from meat. He showed no positive sample 'cut of meat' from the butcher in question (WADA took the liberty to test samples and they were all negative, which is a double negative against Contador in addition to his failure to submit a hair sample).

Therefore, in the absence of proof of contamination, and when presented with a POSITIVE TEST, he gets 2 years. That's what the WADA Code says.

RFEC are poorly educated people who toast champagne when Contador wins a stage at the Tour. They are the OJ Simpson jury of sports.

Contador never met his burden of proof compared to other cases.

Riddle me this...how come CAS upheld a 1-year suspension for swimmer Jessica Hardy despite the fact that she was able to prove her supplements tested positive for clenbuterol?

Contador, has no similar proof and he gets completely exonerated? PUH-leeaze.

You people really have no idea how to adjudicate these cases, do you? You take a wacky story from Contador's lawyers and somehow convince yourself that negates a lab result (in a strict liability system, mind you), and then you somehow think the burden of proof shifts to the UCI to disprove the wacky story! In the process, you somehow think you've made the positive analytical test vanish. But you did no such thing.

I got news for you, the UCI already proved its case with the positive analytical test. Contador essentially blowed a .10 into a Breathalyzer and he's somehow convinced the corrupt and stupid RFEC that he's not drunk.

Wait until CAS sees this nonsense...they'll do the same thing to Contador that they did to Valverde, Landis, Hamilton, Bastienelli, Hondo, and dozens of other cyclists who were convinced by their stupid lawyers they can beat an analytical positive with a story and ZERO proof.

 

[webvan]

My thoughts exactly, unless they can find some tainted meat, or better, some people positive for Clen among the customers of the butcher, they're toast. A hair test wouldn't hurt either.

 

[dolophonic]

Man there is plenty of tainted "Spam" going on here....

 

[Merckx index]

RFEC's error is obvious. Contador showed no proof the contamination came from meat. He showed no positive sample 'cut of meat' from the butcher in question (WADA took the liberty to test samples and they were all negative, which is a double negative against Contador in addition to his failure to submit a hair sample).

This is the decision Python described as “contradictory yet intuitive”. I’m still trying to understand what is intuitive about it. I think GJB, Publicus and others who agree with them are in the end saying that CB should be a threshold substance. The merits of that aside, there is a general rule that you don’t change rules in midstream; that the time to change rules is not in the middle of a case where the changed rules could have a major effect on the decision. I suppose their counter-argument might be that rules or laws are frequently, maybe always, changed in response to a specific test case. That the only reason you know that the rules need to be changed is because some specific individual who is impacted by them is claiming they are unfair.

The only other argument I see here is that the odds of contaminated meat, low as they are, are higher than the odds of a transfusion. Beyond the fact that this argument is not supported at all by pharmacokinetics, even if it were, it still would not address the need for proof that Terminator is raising.

So while I can conceive of ways that Bert could get off, I can’t see any way that doesn’t involve throwing aside the strict threshold rule, IOW, changing the rules specifically for his benefit. To be fair, one could make the same argument for those who have beaten (so far) a CB positive. That even a hair test, meat originating in China, and the evidence that teammates who ate the same meat also tested positive don’t constitute direct proof of contaminated meat (the “smoking steak“, anyone?).

In this limited sense, I can understand, contra Terminator, why these cases are being cited in support of Bert. Cases like the ping-pong player’s are setting a precedent that says, in effect, a CB positive can be set aside even if there is no threshold, if the evidence of contamination is strong enough. Bert is using these cases not because his evidence is necessarily as strong as theirs (some in this forum think it is), but just to take advantage of the precedent-in-the-making that even a no-threshold positive can be set aside. Once the door is open to an evidence-based decision (and remember, it was firmly closed in the case of Jessica Hardy), then one can start haggling over how much evidence, and what kind, is necessary.

 

[GJB123]

That about sums it up really. Ovtcharov didn't produce a smoking gun, was busted for a no threshold, strict liability substance and got off with the approval of WADA (no appeal). This basically means that from a legal point of view the sign posts have been changed since the Jessica Hardy-case, whether or not Terminator likes it or not. And he can be as obtuse as he likes and try to intimidate the entire forum in to taking his point of view, fact is that WADA has already accepted a defense without actual proof of contaminated food or supplement.

The only question that remains is whether CAS will accept it (and they almost certainly will to some extent because otherwise WADA would have appealed the Ovtcharov-decision) and if yes for what cases and what kind of "proof" will be accepted. It might very well be that AC's case is too weak and he will get suspended after all, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

(and boy would I love to see an a$$hole like Terminator eat some humble pie)

Regards
GJ

 

[peloton]

That about sums it up really. Ovtcharov didn't produce a smoking gun, was busted for a no threshold, strict liability substance and got off with the approval of WADA (no appeal). This basically means that from a legal point of view the sign posts have been changed since the Jessica Hardy-case, whether or not Terminator likes it or not. And he can be as obtuse as he likes and try to intimidate the entire forum in to taking his point of view, facts is that WADA has already accepted a defense without actual proof of contaminated food or supplement.

The only question that remains is whether CAS will accept it (and they almost certainly will to some extent because otherwise WADA would have appealed the Ovtcharov-decision) and if yes for what cases and what kind of "proof" will be accepted. It might very well be that AC's case is too weak and he will get suspended after all, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

(and boy would I love to see an a$$hole like Terminator eat some humble pie)

Regards
GJ

+1000

Also, I haven't seen the UCI appealing the other clen positives that happened lately, none of them, afaik, were able to produce the tainted meat or a hair sample...

 

[sniper]

That about sums it up really. Ovtcharov didn't produce a smoking gun, was busted for a no threshold, strict liability substance and got off with the approval of WADA (no appeal). This basically means that from a legal point of view the sign posts have been changed since the Jessica Hardy-case, whether or not Terminator likes it or not. And he can be as obtuse as he likes and try to intimidate the entire forum in to taking his point of view, fact is that WADA has already accepted a defense without actual proof of contaminated food or supplement.

The only question that remains is whether CAS will accept it (and they almost certainly will to some extent because otherwise WADA would have appealed the Ovtcharov-decision) and if yes for what cases and what kind of "proof" will be accepted. It might very well be that AC's case is too weak and he will get suspended after all, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

(and boy would I love to see an a$$hole like Terminator eat some humble pie)

Regards
GJ

ovtcharov was in china, did a hairtest and had his dining-mates testing positive for clen after the same meal, you didn't here?
what are the odds? all on clen? all doing a one-time-microdose?

 

[hrotha]

The only other argument I see here is that the odds of contaminated meat, low as they are, are higher than the odds of a transfusion.

Again, it all comes down to document no.6 in Contador's defense dossier, which I'm not sure why no journalist has managed to get their hands on yet.

 

[GJB123]

ovtcharov was in china, did a hairtest and had his dining-mates testing positive for clen after the same meal, you didn't here?
what are the odds? all on clen? all doing a one-time-microdose?

How does that change the rules? We have a zero-threshold substance in Clen with a strict liability rule. According to Terminator that means you have to prove that the meat you ate was contaminated. He didn't and therefore according to his logic a suspension should have followed. It didn't, so why not?

It didn't because Ovtacharov proved that it was likely that it was contamination. He didn't produce a single part of the meal that was contaminated and he didn't produce any other meat from China that was contaminated. All he did was proving that it was unlikely to be anything else than contamination. This line of defense has been accepted by German federation and anti-doping authorities and, by not appealing, also by WADA. That alone forms a clear departure from previous policy where WADA applied and adhered to zero-threshold and strict liability without remorse.

Now what you are doing is comparing the two cases on facts not on policy. And you are probably right that Ovtcharov's case is factually a lot stronger than AC's and that consequently AC may lose his case at CAS. Nevertheless it is clear that, contrary to what Terminator is saying, WADA is shifting towards a lesser burden of proof (likelihood instead of producing a smoking gun) and towards a threshold. He can make as much "broeha" about his legal prowess and the lack thereof on AC's team as he likes, but this shift in policy is irrefutable in my opinion. AC's case will be a litmus test to see how far that policy or view has really shifted, also at CAS.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

How does that change the rules? We have a zero-threshold substance in Clen with a strict liability rule. According to Terminator that means you have to prove that the meat you ate was contaminated. He didn't and therefore according to his logic a suspension should have followed. It didn't, so why not?

It didn't because Ovtacharov proved that it was likely that it was contamination. He didn't produce a single part of the meal that was contaminated and he didn't produce any other meat from China that was contaminated. All he did was proving that it was unlikely to be anything else than contamination. This line of defense has been accepted by German federation and anti-doping authorities and, by not appealing, also by WADA. That alone forms a clear departure from previous policy where WADA applied and adhered to zero-threshold and strict liability without remorse.

Now what you are doing is comparing the two cases on facts not on policy. And you are probably right that Ovtcharov's case is factually a lot stronger than AC's and that consequently AC may lose his case at CAS. Nevertheless it is clear that, contrary to what Terminator is saying, WADA is shifting towards a lesser burden of proof (likelihood instead of producing a smoking gun) and towards a threshold. He can make as much "broeha" about his legal prowess and the lack thereof on AC's team as he likes, but this shift in policy is irrefutable in my opinion. AC's case will be a litmus test to see how far that policy or view has really shifted, also at CAS.

Regards
GJ

I agree with this post in its entirety. Indeed, it'll a be a litmus test.
The Ovcharov-case shows that common sense is still present in the minds of WADA officials.
If AC is convicted, to me this would be yet another victory of common sense.

Note also that, whether we like it or not, there is an increased public interest in having AC convicted, much more than in having a pingpong player convicted, if only it is for sending out the message that political interference is not accepted and that his involvement in OP has not been forgotten.
Of course, none of this guarantees that AC'll get his punishment, but it at least increases the interest UCI/WADA and CAS may have in taking him off the road.

 

[TERMINATOR]

This is the decision Python described as “contradictory yet intuitive”. I’m still trying to understand what is intuitive about it. I think GJB, Publicus and others who agree with them are in the end saying that CB should be a threshold substance. The merits of that aside, there is a general rule that you don’t change rules in midstream; that the time to change rules is not in the middle of a case where the changed rules could have a major effect on the decision. I suppose their counter-argument might be that rules or laws are frequently, maybe always, changed in response to a specific test case. That the only reason you know that the rules need to be changed is because some specific individual who is impacted by them is claiming they are unfair.

You are not making counterarguments because arguments must be based on EVIDENCE. You are using stories. Contador has no proof that the meat he ate was contaminated with clenbuterol. In cases where athletes came to CAS and proved their supplement was contaminated, they still got a 1 year suspension (see Jessica Hardy case).

Contador is getting 2 years, trust me.

The only other argument I see here is that the odds of contaminated meat, low as they are, are higher than the odds of a transfusion. Beyond the fact that this argument is not supported at all by pharmacokinetics, even if it were, it still would not address the need for proof that Terminator is raising.

CAS isn't going to play any kind of guessing game. They will give him 2 years based on a positive analytical test for clenbuterol. You and the rest who think CAS is going to make all these surmisals about where clenuterol came from are kidding yourselves. They don't care. Contador needed to prove it came from the meat and he failed to do that. WADA tested the meat from the butcher and they all came back negative.

Second, the probability that Contador used a transfusion is much higher than ingesting clenbuterol. How many cyclists were implicated in Operacion Puerto? About 50?

Lance was implicated in blood doping. Landis. Ullrich. 75% of the peloton likely blood doped at one point in their career.

Do you really think the odds of contaminated meat is that high? Try about 1 in 527,000.

No matter how you slice this pie, Contador is guilty and is getting 2 years.

So while I can conceive of ways that Bert could get off, I can’t see any way that doesn’t involve throwing aside the strict threshold rule, IOW, changing the rules specifically for his benefit. To be fair, one could make the same argument for those who have beaten (so far) a CB positive. That even a hair test, meat originating in China, and the evidence that teammates who ate the same meat also tested positive don’t constitute direct proof of contaminated meat (the “smoking steak“, anyone?).

Nobody has beaten a clenbuterol positive at CAS. You are confusing cases wrongfully decided by stupid federations. CAS will not give those decisions any weight whatsoever.

CAS didn't decide the ping pong player case. That was decided by the German ping pong federation, which is the German equivalent of RFEC. You may as well let Patrick Lefevere decide a doping case against Boonen....because that's about how much credibility these federation cases have with CAS.

CAS laughs at those cases whereas you people in here hold them up to worship.

------

In this limited sense, I can understand, contra Terminator, why these cases are being cited in support of Bert. Cases like the ping-pong player’s are setting a precedent that says, in effect, a CB positive can be set aside even if there is no threshold, if the evidence of contamination is strong enough. Bert is using these cases not because his evidence is necessarily as strong as theirs (some in this forum think it is), but just to take advantage of the precedent-in-the-making that even a no-threshold positive can be set aside. Once the door is open to an evidence-based decision (and remember, it was firmly closed in the case of Jessica Hardy), then one can start haggling over how much evidence, and what kind, is necessary.

I'm gonna tell you for the last time: cases decided by national federations are NOT considered precedents to CAS!

There is no precedent in CAS for an athlete who tested positive for clenbuterol and got off. They are all found guilty. Contador will lose.

You people have no idea what you are talking about. You are confusing cases decided by national federations which are comprised of former athletes who have no legal expertise whatsoever and tons of corruption...and equating those decisions with CAS rulings. CAS does not cite federation cases in their rulings as precedents!

Every single clenbuterol case that has come before CAS has resulted in a suspension. Contador's case will be no different. He showed no proof of contamination, and could not show a negative hair test. The guy has been duped by his attorneys..just like Valverde and Hondo and the rest of those con artists.

 

[GJB123]

CAS didn't decide the ping pong player case. That was decided by the German ping pong federation, which is the German equivalent of RFEC. You may as well let Patrick Lefevere decide a doping case against Boonen....because that's about how much credibility these federation cases have with CAS.

CAS laughs at those cases whereas you people in here hold them up to worship.

Nevertheless WADA decided not to appeal the pong player's case. Or are they also completely stupid? Whether you like it or not the sign posts are shifting.

Regards
GJ

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Nevertheless WADA decided not to appeal the pong player's case. Or are they also completely stupid? Whether you like it or not the sign posts are shifting.

Regards
GJ

Isn't this thread about the appeal to CAS, and not whether leniency is being handled by whoever else? Besides the uci appealed and I thought wada was planning to as well so maybe these things you cite are irrelevant here. Terminator is right.

 

[c&cfan]

Nevertheless WADA decided not to appeal the pong player's case. Or are they also completely stupid? Whether you like it or not the sign posts are shifting.

Regards
GJ

lol

you already know the guy's answer. why bother?

the sign posts arent shifting gjb, the sign posts are a mess! with this case, we will see the correct (?) direction.

contador for the double

this is real entertaining.