UCI Won't Speed Up Clentador Decision

[Polyarmour]

Trying to use German ping pongers as a precedent does not cut it when you already have cyclists being banned for Clen. Sorry.

How do you even begin to explain that one?

"Aaah, well, we know we've already banned these other cyclists for accidental intake of Clen in dodgy countries, however this time we want to let Contador off the hook for accidentally taking Clen in country where Clen really doesn't exist. Why? Well that's what they did to some German ping pong players who ate meat in a dodgy country."

I don't think I've heard a more ridiculous argument. I don't think the UCI is spending any time at all contemplating this one.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Trying to use German ping pongers as a precedent does not cut it when you already have cyclists being banned for Clen. Sorry.

How do you even begin to explain that one?

As has been explained up-thread, Bert has to prove, beyond the balance of probability, that he had no fault or negligence. He has a distinct advantage over Li, because he can prove that the CB found in his system was not the remnants of a therapeutic dose at that time. He can argue that proves he didn't deliberately dope and therefore has no fault, which is actually pretty cut and dried. In effect, this might put the burden of proof back onto the other side.

The counter argument would go along the lines of "well, it got there somehow, which is very unusual (insert some data about how often CB is found in the general population here). We don't know exactly what he's been up to, but we are pretty sure it's something dodgy and there is a good chance it was a blood transfusion, because of these plasticizers in his blood." That argument is not so cut and dried. The lawyers will enjoy a spirited debate about what information can and can't be brought up at the hearing, and some people involved won't understand the statistics half as well as they think they do.

Who knows what decision on sanctions will ultimately be made. Contador may dodge a bullet and this may turn out to be another unmentionable unsanctionable type incident. What is clear is that there was an AAF and at the very least there needs to be a hearing to decide the case. It will be interesting to see whether the relevant cycling authorities put together a strong case against Contador, or if WADA ends up appealing the decision.

 

[scribe]

merckx, i think you and dr. mass (along with me) are essentially marveling at the same issue - strangeness of contador's 'results management' by the uci. dr mass only corrected the terminology used - aaf - which you acknowledged.

we all remain in limbo as to why the contador case is so different. i'm currently reading the uci rule book on the results management and will post soon my ideas re what the 'legitimate' possibilities might be.

translation: I don't really know what I am talking about. But I can make it sound pretty good if you give me a chance.

 

[python]

translation: I don't really know what I am talking about. But I can make it sound pretty good if you give me a chance.

reverse translation: another of scribles idiotic comments that contribute nothing.

 

[HoustonHammer]

As has been explained up-thread, Bert has to prove, beyond the balance of probability, that he had no fault or negligence. He has a distinct advantage over Li, because he can prove that the CB found in his system was not the remnants of a therapeutic dose at that time. He can argue that proves he didn't deliberately dope and therefore has no fault, which is actually pretty cut and dried. In effect, this might put the burden of proof back onto the other side.

The counter argument would go along the lines of "well, it got there somehow, which is very unusual (insert some data about how often CB is found in the general population here). We don't know exactly what he's been up to, but we are pretty sure it's something dodgy and there is a good chance it was a blood transfusion, because of these plasticizers in his blood." That argument is not so cut and dried. The lawyers will enjoy a spirited debate about what information can and can't be brought up at the hearing, and some people involved won't understand the statistics half as well as they think they do.

Who knows what decision on sanctions will ultimately be made. Contador may dodge a bullet and this may turn out to be another unmentionable unsanctionable type incident. What is clear is that there was an AAF and at the very least there needs to be a hearing to decide the case. It will be interesting to see whether the relevant cycling authorities put together a strong case against Contador, or if WADA ends up appealing the decision.

That isn't how it works. The critical first step in proving "no fault or negligence", is proving how the prohibited substance got into the sample. You can't overemphasize this point: it is flatly insufficient to prove how it didn't get there; you have to positively prove how it did get there. Once the means by which it got into the sample is established, there is a basis for determining whether the athlete had any degree of fault or negligence in association with that means.

In this case, AC would have to first prove, to a balance of probability standard, that the Clen got into his sample via tainted meat. If he could do that, then the next element of the argument would be that there is nothing negligent about buying a good cut of meat at a reputable butcher. Put the two together, and you potentially have a case for eliminating the period of ineligibility.

The problem, as has been observed here ad nauseum, is that statistically speaking, it is incredibly improbable to find a cut of steak in Spain or elsewhere in Western Europe that has Clen in it. That makes it virtually impossible to meet the balance of probability standard.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not predicting how the case will be decided, and will not be slightly surprised if he walks away scot free. I'm convinced there are few areas of human endeavor that are more corrupt and less subject to oversight and accountability than international sports management.

 

[Polyarmour]

That isn't how it works. The critical first step in proving "no fault or negligence", is proving how the prohibited substance got into the sample. You can't overemphasize this point: it is flatly insufficient to prove how it didn't get there; you have to positively prove how it did get there. Once the means by which it got into the sample is established, there is a basis for determining whether the athlete had any degree of fault or negligence in association with that means.

In this case, AC would have to first prove, to a balance of probability standard, that the Clen got into his sample via tainted meat. If he could do that, then the next element of the argument would be that there is nothing negligent about buying a good cut of meat at a reputable butcher. Put the two together, and you potentially have a case for eliminating the period of ineligibility.

The problem, as has been observed here ad nauseum, is that statistically speaking, it is incredibly improbable to find a cut of steak in Spain or elsewhere in Western Europe that has Clen in it. That makes it virtually impossible to meet the balance of probability standard.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not predicting how the case will be decided, and will not be slightly surprised if he walks away scot free. I'm convinced there are few areas of human endeavor that are more corrupt and less subject to oversight and accountability than international sports management.

Even if Contador can prove he accidentally ate tainted meat he will still get a 1 year suspension and lose the TdF. The precedent for this is now well established.

 

[scribe]

reverse translation: another of scribles idiotic comments that contribute nothing.

Did you find any 'outs' for Contador in the UCI handbook?

 

[Polyarmour]

As has been explained up-thread, Bert has to prove, beyond the balance of probability, that he had no fault or negligence. He has a distinct advantage over Li, because he can prove that the CB found in his system was not the remnants of a therapeutic dose at that time. He can argue that proves he didn't deliberately dope and therefore has no fault, which is actually pretty cut and dried. In effect, this might put the burden of proof back onto the other side.

The counter argument would go along the lines of "well, it got there somehow, which is very unusual (insert some data about how often CB is found in the general population here). We don't know exactly what he's been up to, but we are pretty sure it's something dodgy and there is a good chance it was a blood transfusion, because of these plasticizers in his blood." That argument is not so cut and dried. The lawyers will enjoy a spirited debate about what information can and can't be brought up at the hearing, and some people involved won't understand the statistics half as well as they think they do.

Who knows what decision on sanctions will ultimately be made. Contador may dodge a bullet and this may turn out to be another unmentionable unsanctionable type incident. What is clear is that there was an AAF and at the very least there needs to be a hearing to decide the case. It will be interesting to see whether the relevant cycling authorities put together a strong case against Contador, or if WADA ends up appealing the decision.

The best Contador can hope for is a one year suspension. This is what was handed out to Alessandro Colo for testing positive to Clen during the Vuelta Mexico, a country where 18% of the meat is tainted with Clen.

Essentially the UCI said, we believe it was accidental so therefore under WADA rules we can reduce your sentence from 2 years to 1 year.

The UCI will not ignore the precedents that have already been set on this. Much as you might want them to.

If Contador cannot prove accidental contamination (and lets face it, that will be difficult) he will get two years. Simple.

 

[python]

again - contador's case is officially about aaf for clen, but in reality about the underlying reasonable probability of blood doping.

it's an integral part of any argument regardless of the stage it's made at - either during the results management review by the uci or later (where it seems would be more appropriate as during virtually every other case) - actual hearing by the national federation.

all possible reasons for clen being found in his urine narrow down to two choices ingested or transfused/injected. the only other reasonable route that contador himself never argued - and that imo in and of itself would be highly suspicious if he did - is the contamination trough a supplement and/or medication.

if he used the contaminated supplement theory he would have almost no chance to completely get out of 'no negligence' as jessica hardy's case and many other showed.

so, again - it's about blood doping or not and any statistical improbability of catching a contaminated meat in spain, whilst a reasonable argument - can be rebutted by various tests (if available) like in the case of the german ponger. this is where i see this case is stuck right now.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

That isn't how it works. The critical first step in proving "no fault or negligence", is proving how the prohibited substance got into the sample. You can't overemphasize this point: it is flatly insufficient to prove how it didn't get there; you have to positively prove how it did get there. Once the means by which it got into the sample is established, there is a basis for determining whether the athlete had any degree of fault or negligence in association with that means. ....

What gives you that impression?

I don't recall reading anything in the WADA rules that states that the ONLY way to demonstrate no fault or negligence is to prove how the banned substance got into your body. I also don't recall a case where an athlete has been banned, although they could prove that the banned substance was not part of a therapeutic dose. But I'm no expert so if you have better info I would be interested in seeing it.

Edit: I just re-read the WADA stuff. You are right, no fault or negligence involves demonstrating how the banned substance got there.

 

[scribe]

The best Contador can hope for is a one year suspension. This is what was handed out to Alessandro Colo for testing positive to Clen during the Vuelta Mexico, a country where 18% of the meat is tainted with Clen.

Essentially the UCI said, we believe it was accidental so therefore under WADA rules we can reduce your sentence from 2 years to 1 year.

The UCI will not ignore the precedents that have already been set on this. Much as you might want them to.

If Contador cannot prove accidental contamination (and lets face it, that will be difficult) he will get two years. Simple.

That's Spanish speaking beef there in Mexico. There is a plausible parallel going on with these cases. Given that Spain is cleaner than Mexico (rumor), then you have to take that 1 year ban and split it again 3 more times to get Contador's ban time.

Says it right there in the UCI handbook.

 

[royalpig180]

Even if Contador can prove he accidentally ate tainted meat he will still get a 1 year suspension and lose the TdF. The precedent for this is now well established.

Do you really think that precedent will have any bearing on how the UCI handles the case? C'mon, this is the UCI we're talking about here...

The CAS would probably stick to precedent a little more closely if/when the case goes there. Suppose the Spanish national federation decides not to sanction him, and the UCI (not wanting to push sanctions on the sport's biggest name) decides not to appeal to the CAS. Is there any other body that could appeal the decision?

 

[Ferminal]

Do you really think that precedent will have any bearing on how the UCI handles the case? C'mon, this is the UCI we're talking about here...

The CAS would probably stick to precedent a little more closely if/when the case goes there. Suppose the Spanish national federation decides not to sanction him, and the UCI (not wanting to push sanctions on the sport's biggest name) decides not to appeal to the CAS. Is there any other body that could appeal the decision?

No it will not matter to the UCI or the Spanish Fed.

But if WADA isn't happy they will take it to CAS, where it would be very unlikely for AC to escape with a slap on the wrist.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

The best Contador can hope for is a one year suspension. This is what was handed out to Alessandro Colo for testing positive to Clen during the Vuelta Mexico, a country where 18% of the meat is tainted with Clen.

18% of the meat may be tainted, but what % of the population show positive. Is it close to 100% because lots of steak gets eaten, and you only need one dodgy steak a fortnight to test positive......or is it for example 12%, because people generally eat animals from the same source, and the chance of testing positive after eating contaminated meat is 67%?

Essentially the UCI said, we believe it was accidental so therefore under WADA rules we can reduce your sentence from 2 years to 1 year.

If they believe it was accidental they can and should reduce the ban to zero. What are you paraphrasing here? A newspaper article?

The UCI will not ignore the precedents that have already been set on this. Much as you might want them to.

The only UCI precedent I want them to ignore is their improper or downright corrupt MO. The wording "dodge a bullet" was a clue to what I hope the outcome of this will be. Even though I am definitely a Contador fan, I think that by far the most likely way the Clen got into his system was a blood transfusion, and he should be sanctioned.

If Contador cannot prove accidental contamination (and lets face it, that will be difficult) he will get two years. Simple.

If he can PROVE it, he gets no ban. Simple

 

[python]

What gives you that impression?

I don't recall reading anything in the WADA rules that states that the ONLY way to demonstrate no fault or negligence is to prove how the banned substance got into your body. I also don't recall a case where an athlete has been banned, although they could prove that the banned was not part of a therapeutic dose. But I'm no expert so if you have better info I would be interested in seeing it.

i go back to the only case on books where an athlete was 100% absolved of a clenbuterol charge - the german ponger last week.

the 'proof' of no negligence - accepted by german nada and now confirmed by the international tt federation - was a deductive process of elimination.

something like this - he was in china, right, we know they dope their beef, right, we know his teammates all got clen at that very time, right, we know clen does not make sense to be used in table tennis (hand tremor), right,
it must be the beef

this logic never worked before. why ?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

i go back to the only case on books where an athlete was 100% absolved of a clenbuterol charge - the german ponger last week.

the 'proof' of no negligence - accepted by german nada and now confirmed by the international tt federation - was a deductive process of elimination.

something like this - he was in china, right, we know they dope their beef, right, we know his teammates all got clen at that very time, right, we know clen does not make sense to be used in table tennis (hand tremor), right,
it must be the beef

this logic never worked before. why ?

I think because after the AAF, the onus is on the athlete to demonstrate no fault (balance of probability for that one IIRC). For example, Li may have been in China, but less than e.g. 50% of the population show Clen in their system, he has no entourage with him that also tests positive at the time.......and he has no proof that the low concentration in his system isn't due to a previous higher concentration.....and he has no proof that cyclists don't use clen during a training block . He has nothing to build a case on so he is automatically screwed.

It's odd when it's far more likely Li had contaminated meat than Bert. It's also weird that Bert's defense may be based around data that wouldn't have been collected unless he was the race favorite. Even if they follow due process*, Bert might get away with it as a result of being at the top of the food chain.

*where is the flying pig emoticon?

 

[python]

I think because after the AAF, the onus is on the athlete to demonstrate no fault (balance of probability for that one IIRC). For example, Li may have been in China, but less than e.g. 50% of the population show Clen in their system, he has no entourage with him that also tests positive at the time.......and he has no proof that the low concentration in his system isn't due to a previous higher concentration.....and he has no proof that cyclists don't use clen during a training block . He has nothing to build a case on so he is automatically screwed.

It's odd when it's far more likely Li had contaminated meat than Bert. It's also weird that Bert's defense may be based around data that wouldn't have been collected unless he was the race favorite. Even if they follow due process*, Bert might get away with it as a result of being at the top of the food chain.

*where is the flying pig emoticon?

i am 100% with you. my gut says it's blood doping, my mind says - he's likely to be saved by the high tide created by ovcharov's science team.

 

[HoustonHammer]

What gives you that impression?

I don't recall reading anything in the WADA rules that states that the ONLY way to demonstrate no fault or negligence is to prove how the banned substance got into your body. I also don't recall a case where an athlete has been banned, although they could prove that the banned substance was not part of a therapeutic dose. But I'm no expert so if you have better info I would be interested in seeing it.

Yeah, it's in the code. Article 10.5.1 "No Fault or Negligence" says:

If an Athlete establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in an Athlete's Sample in violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance), the Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated.

Article 10.5.2 "No Significant Fault or Negligence" includes the same language.

Jessica Hardy is frequently cited as having proved that her supplements contained Clen, and who subsequently received a one-year ban. But it's kind of a complicated case, and I'm not sure it's as relevant as some would say.

I'd suggest looking at a case like Colo. He "proved" that the Clen came from beef, apparently by demonstrating the high incidence of tainted meat in Mexico. The important thing to remember is the balance of probability standard, which is a lot lower than the 'reasonable doubt' standard that we're more accustomed to. If CONI, UCI and other anti-doping authorities are following the rules, then every one-year ban you see should be the result of an athlete proving how a substance entered his system, and establishing that he had reduced culpability.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Yeah, it's in the code. Article 10.5.1 "No Fault or Negligence" says:

Yep, found it already and edited my post.

So what's interesting me now is what possible excuse there is for the delay in hearing Contador's case?

Also, are athletes warned of Clen contamination in Mexico? Can they reasonably be expected to know to take care with food in that way? Or is Mexico a known haven for athletes wanting to go on a wight loss program and have a handy excuse......(wtf was rasmussen thinking, but i digress).

 

[HoustonHammer]

18% of the meat may be tainted, but what % of the population show positive. Is it close to 100% because lots of steak gets eaten, and you only need one dodgy steak a fortnight to test positive......or is it for example 12%, because people generally eat animals from the same source, and the chance of testing positive after eating contaminated meat is 67%?

That's an interesting theory, and quite persuasive, assuming the data shows a high % of Clen contamination in the population.

If they believe it was accidental they can and should reduce the ban to zero. What are you paraphrasing here? A newspaper article?

The only UCI precedent I want them to ignore is their improper or downright corrupt MO. The wording "dodge a bullet" was a clue to what I hope the outcome of this will be. Even though I am definitely a Contador fan, I think that by far the most likely way the Clen got into his system was a blood transfusion, and he should be sanctioned.

If he can PROVE it, he gets no ban. Simple

I agree this is a logical position, but it's just not how the rules are written. The code has examples included as footnotes for illustrative purposes. Its example of "No Fault" is where an athlete is sabotaged by a competitor and can prove it; in that case, there is no ban or "period of ineligibility". For "No Significant Fault" the examples are a) accidental contamination via otherwise legal supplements; and b) administration by a coach or trainer without the knowledge of the athlete; these cases get a one-year "period of ineligibility". I'd argue that meat case is much closer to the supplement example than the sabotage example, but that is open to debate.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

That's an interesting theory, and quite persuasive, assuming the data shows a high % of Clen contamination in the population.

Not a theory really. Just demonstrating that the 18% stat is pretty useless in determining the likelihood of an individual having an AAF due to contaminated meat, without stats on how that translates into the population.

I agree this is a logical position, but it's just not how the rules are written. The code has examples included as footnotes for illustrative purposes. Its example of "No Fault" is where an athlete is sabotaged by a competitor and can prove it; in that case, there is no ban or "period of ineligibility". For "No Significant Fault" the examples are a) accidental contamination via otherwise legal supplements; and b) administration by a coach or trainer without the knowledge of the athlete; these cases get a one-year "period of ineligibility". I'd argue that meat case is much closer to the supplement example than the sabotage example, but that is open to debate.

I would argue that contaminated food from the general food supply was closer to "no fault" than "no significant fault", because "Athletes ...... have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination.". The exception IMO would be if athletes have been warned or could reasonably be expected to know that anything they buy from an independent 3rd party had a reasonable chance of contamination. (Essentially to prevent people from travelling to places where they hope the food supply will mask their PED use.)

Makes the Colo case interesting. It would be interesting to know if the contamination in the food supply means more than 50% contamination in the population - otherwise it is hard to see why there was any reduction in sanction at all. It would also be interesting to know how many athletes are aware of food contamination risks from certain countries, or if they are warned.....off to see if that can be found on the WADA site....

 

[Polyarmour]

I would argue that contaminated food from the general food supply was closer to "no fault" than "no significant fault", because "Athletes ...... have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination.". The exception IMO would be if athletes have been warned or could reasonably be expected to know that anything they buy from an independent 3rd party had a reasonable chance of contamination. (Essentially to prevent people from travelling to places where they hope the food supply will mask their PED use.)

Makes the Colo case interesting. It would be interesting to know if the contamination in the food supply means more than 50% contamination in the population - otherwise it is hard to see why there was any reduction in sanction at all. It would also be interesting to know how many athletes are aware of food contamination risks from certain countries, or if they are warned.....off to see if that can be found on the WADA site....

It is not "No Fault". In the Colo case WADA reiterated the position that the athlete is ultimately responsible for what they put into their body. If you take supplements you need to know what's in them. When you eat food as an athlete you need quality controls in place to make sure you're not taking in any nasty surprises. If you don't put these controls in place, it's your own fault. If you can't find local organic, you bring your own.

 

[BroDeal]

It is not "No Fault". In the Colo case WADA reiterated the position that the athlete is ultimately responsible for what they put into their body. If you take supplements you need to know what's in them. When you eat food as an athlete you need quality controls in place to make sure you're not taking in any nasty surprises. If you don't put these controls in place, it's your own fault. If you can't find local organic, you bring your own.

The UCI's best strategy for letting Contador off is to declare that WADA's zero threshold policy is ludicrous when testing for substances at infinitesimal levels. At the same time they should let Fuyu and others off, and demand that WADA set reasonable threshold limits on all substances. They have the opinion of the director of the Cologne lab to back them up.

It is one thing to say that the athlete is responsible for reading the labels on supplements to make sure he does not ingest anything banned. It is quite another to claim that the athelete should only eat organically grown food for fear of ingesting banned substances. It is not like food at the supermarket comes with a label that declares possible contaminants. There is huge amounts of fraud going on in the organic food industry; it is too tempting to get a premium price for your goods by claiming they were grown organically. Is everyone supposed to live on a farm and grow their own food?

Behind the scenes Contador's lawyers should be threatening civil action using labor laws. As detectable amounts get smaller and smaller, there will come a point when athletes can be deprived of their livelyhood by testing positive for trace amounts of substances that are in the general environment through no fault of their own. I have no idea what the threshold amount should be, but logically there has to be a threshold.

 

[peloton]

Essentially the UCI said, we believe it was accidental so therefore under WADA rules we can reduce your sentence from 2 years to 1 year.

That was CONI, not the UCI...

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It is not "No Fault". In the Colo case WADA reiterated the position that the athlete is ultimately responsible for what they put into their body. If you take supplements you need to know what's in them. When you eat food as an athlete you need quality controls in place to make sure you're not taking in any nasty surprises. If you don't put these controls in place, it's your own fault. If you can't find local organic, you bring your own.

WADA can reiterate that position all they like, but the FACT is that their own code allows for the possibility, under 10.5.1 that a banned substance may be detected but that the athlete may have no fault or negligence. So the debate is about what qualifies as no fault and what doesn't, not whether it exists.

It's a digression from the Contador case though. As Houston has made clear, Contador would have to provide evidence that Clen got into his system from food contamination before he would be able to even begin on a "no fault or negligence" argument. I don't see that happening and agree with your conclusion that Contador will get a ban of 1-2 years and lose his latest tour title. But I still have the impression you arrived at that conclusion accidentally, because there weren't examples of athletes demonstrating food contamination caused their positive.

Until Herr PingPong that is.

And please don't come back with the Colo thing, unless you can add more info or address the questions I posed up-thread. Cause if not, Colo is no relevant precedent!