UCI Won't Speed Up Clentador Decision

[HoustonHammer]

Why can't he just believe in the miracle of sporting achievement? The greatest cycling of our generation would never have risked everything with such an insignificant amount of a banned substance.

Good question. Some would say it's caused by my thickness of attitude and thinness of reasoning, or my cluelessness. A noted sports psychologist put it down to my incapability of open discussion and following sources.

But I think maybe it's just that I have a heart of stone. It's so hard being me

 

[Cal_Joe]

Exactly: results of WHAT?

News flash, Pat: YOUR ORGANIZATION already made a press release confirming that the riders A and B samples both came back positive for a prohibited substance!

Sounds like a lot of people are confused. From Bonnie Ford's column at ESPN - http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?columnist=ford_bonnie_d&id=5705203

"UCI chief Pat McQuaid added to the general confusion and consternation swirling around Contador on Tuesday when he implied that the federation was waiting for "results" from WADA before taking action.

WADA director general David Howman told ESPN.com that was incorrect. "I don't understand that at all," Howman said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "I'll see him tomorrow and ask him about it. I have no idea what he means by that."

 

[python]

In all the time it took you to write that you could have just pasted in some sources.

I did not suggest Ovtcharov was not German - in fact I was pointing out your plural use of the word. You mentioned that more than he had failed a test, again source it.

Ovtcharov has gone out of his way to (thusfar) avoid sanction -all in one month!

Contador had much longer - and all we have is a 'contaminated meat' story, with not even the receipt to show.

to the bolded.

i agree, at this point we don’t have much public information to consider him innocent. if anything, there is enough info to automatically apply the same criteria that resulted in banning of others.

the complication comes from considering the only realistic alternative to food contamination - blood transfusion.

i am guessing, but noone knows full details except those directly involved, that the whole delay revolves around the very issue of determining if there was blood transfusion. They need to determine that with high level of confidence. if yes, contador is cooked for ever, if no they still have to decide on the clen contamination case which is either passed down to rfec or dropped, like the german ping ponger’s.

there were two methods mentioned to entertain the blood transfusion - the un-validated plasticizer test and the validated blood passport. If there was agreement between the two methods, either way positive or negative, we’d already see the movement in the case. the unvalidated plasticizer test would be good enough if the passport showed some signs of doping. one aspect of the delay is perhaps, some additional testing on blood and urine that could move the hypothesis of blood doping along.

another aspect of the delay, may be tied to the several issues arising from the german ping ponger acquittal. i never suggested the two cases are the same. no, quite different sports, different potential for clen’s effects, different circumstances surrounding the fateful dinner, different doping history..but there are also striking similarities and the new insights into the contador case coming out of the german case. . specifically- potential application of hair follicle test and the very sensitive (un-validated) clenbuterol test. the hair test is useful for one purpose only - determining clen's abuse with longer detection window. obviously both the uci/wada and berto’s team can glean useful information from this. who knows, may be that’s what they are testing now - berto's and his dinner companions hair ?

the existence of the super-sensitive clen urine test is also important as it allows the opposite of hait test - short detection window and modeling pharmacokinetics of contador’s clen in the system more accurately following whatever route of administration. Recall, 2 of his tests on 22nd and 23 were negative but showed some traces of clen. It was application of these two tests that allowed geman scientists to conclude that ovcharov and his teammates clen urine concentrations fit well the assumption of eating contaminated meat while in china rather than doping with therapeutic doses. contador’s defence or his accusers may be looking down the same road. Contador for example, in the absence of blood transfusion proof, may try to use the same rationale as the german - ‘there was no doping with therapeutic doses thus it must be contamination’

all i was pointing to was not that contador should go free but that these could be the real issues delaying the case and the wada uci may need to sort them out conclusively one way or the other.

 

[AussieGoddess]

the complication comes from considering the only realistic alternative to food contamination - blood transfusion.

i am guessing, but noone knows full details except those directly involved, that the whole delay revolves around the very issue of determining if there was blood transfusion. They need to determine that with high level of confidence. if yes, contador is cooked for ever, if no they still have to decide on the clen contamination case which is either passed down to rfec or dropped, like the german ping ponger’s.

But the thing is, they DONT need to prove blood transfusions. They already have a posative test which meets the criteria for stipping his title and a 2 year ban.

Alberto Contador needs to prove on the balance of probabilities (ie what a reasonable person might beleive) that the only explanation is that he ate contaminated food.

WADA (who will appeal if the Spanish authorities do not ban him) do not have to PROVE that blood transfusions happened - only that transfusions are a reasonable and possible explanation.

 

[Wallace]

I think we all should be grateful the Spanish authorities are being so thorough about this. Clearly what they need to do, are are doing, is to test every single cow in Spain for Clenbuterol. If they're all clean, then Contador is dirty. But if as there's one cow, somewhere on a hill in the wilds of Spain, all doped up with clen, then AC is obviously innocent. It shouldn't take too long. How many cows are there in Spain? We just have to be patient and let the process work.

 

[Merckx index]

The article also goes on:

"On behalf of NADA, supported by DTTB and with the intention to check the credibility of contamination which OVTCHAROV suspected, the respective samples – after the positive result for Dimitrij OVTCHAROV became known - were tested again for Clenbuterol, using a much more sensitive and normally, in practice not applied method of measuring. This additional test should prove if traces of the phenomenon Clenbuterol could possibly be found with the other participants of the China Open. This analysis actually showed such traces of Clenbuterol in a hardly measurable, extremely low area of concentration (2.5 pg/ml, 5 pg/ml, 7.1 pg/ml and 10 pg/ml). These four samples do not fulfil the relevant criteria of the so called “Adverse Analytical Finding” and therefore, due to the minimal quantity, cannot justify the suspicion of doping. NADA confirmed this in their letter to the DTTB dated September 27."

[/U]

CB is not a threshold drug, so ANY amount is supposed to be indicative of doping. As Ayotte pointed out, if you don't know when the drug was taken, the amount detected can't tell you how much was originally ingested.

If D.O. gets off, it will be, as others have emphasized, because CB is not thought to help ping-pong players, and because China is thought to do a lot of CB injections in cattle. The fact that four of his teammates had very tiny doses of CB supports the contaminated meat theory, but if none of them--including D.O.--was tested at any earlier time, doping with a much larger dose can't be ruled out. WADA ought to raise this issue, precisely because it is NOT an issue with Bert, who was tested on an earlier day.

In summary, these cases are very different, but not all the advantages lie with D.O. His advantages vs. Bert are 1) the nature of his sport; and 2) the country where he claims contaminated meat occurred. Bert's advantage is the negative test preceding the positive one. That is actually a far stronger piece of evidence against intentional CB doping than D.O has to offer. If it were not for the possibility of transfusion, and the alleged evidence in support of it, Bert would really have the stronger case here.

In fact, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. How do we know that the ping-pong players didn't transfuse? It's been argued that CB would not help a ping-pong player, but it might be useful during the off-season if you wanted to lose weight. I can also imagine a ping-pong player transfusing, since it is a game of constant, rapid motion. Better oxygenation is going to provide some benefit. How do we know that D.O. didn't take CB during the off-season, then withdraw blood and transfuse before a match?

I understand this is pretty unlikely, but do ping-pong players get tested for blood doping, EPO, etc.? If they do, this is a legitimate possibility. If not, what's to stop them from doing it?

 

[El Pistolero]

CB is not a threshold drug, so ANY amount is supposed to be indicative of doping. As Ayotte pointed out, if you don't know when the drug was taken, the amount detected can't tell you how much was originally ingested.

If D.O. gets off, it will be, as others have emphasized, because CB is not thought to help ping-pong players, and because China is thought to do a lot of CB injections in cattle. The fact that four of his teammates had very tiny doses of CB supports the contaminated meat theory, but if none of them--including D.O.--was tested at any earlier time, doping with a much larger dose can't be ruled out. WADA ought to raise this issue, precisely because it is NOT an issue with Bert, who was tested on an earlier day.

In summary, these cases are very different, but not all the advantages lie with D.O. His advantages vs. Bert are 1) the nature of his sport; and 2) the country where he claims contaminated meat occurred. Bert's advantage is the negative test preceding the positive one. That is actually a far stronger piece of evidence against intentional CB doping than D.O has to offer. If it were not for the possibility of transfusion, and the alleged evidence in support of it, Bert would really have the stronger case here.

In fact, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. How do we know that the ping-pong players didn't transfuse? It's been argued that CB would not help a ping-pong player, but it might be useful during the off-season if you wanted to lose weight. I can also imagine a ping-pong player transfusing, since it is a game of constant, rapid motion. Better oxygenation is going to provide some benefit. How do we know that D.O. didn't take CB during the off-season, then withdraw blood and transfuse before a match?

I understand this is pretty unlikely, but do ping-pong players get tested for blood doping, EPO, etc.? If they do, this is a legitimate possibility. If not, what's to stop them from doing it?

I'm sure these ping pong players can find some advantage in Clen.

Although, he's probably innocent because it was in China.

 

[HoustonHammer]

CB is not a threshold drug, so ANY amount is supposed to be indicative of doping. As Ayotte pointed out, if you don't know when the drug was taken, the amount detected can't tell you how much was originally ingested.

If D.O. gets off, it will be, as others have emphasized, because CB is not thought to help ping-pong players, and because China is thought to do a lot of CB injections in cattle. The fact that four of his teammates had very tiny doses of CB supports the contaminated meat theory, but if none of them--including D.O.--was tested at any earlier time, doping with a much larger dose can't be ruled out. WADA ought to raise this issue, precisely because it is NOT an issue with Bert, who was tested on an earlier day.

In summary, these cases are very different, but not all the advantages lie with D.O. His advantages vs. Bert are 1) the nature of his sport; and 2) the country where he claims contaminated meat occurred. Bert's advantage is the negative test preceding the positive one. That is actually a far stronger piece of evidence against intentional CB doping than D.O has to offer. If it were not for the possibility of transfusion, and the alleged evidence in support of it, Bert would really have the stronger case here.

In fact, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. How do we know that the ping-pong players didn't transfuse? It's been argued that CB would not help a ping-pong player, but it might be useful during the off-season if you wanted to lose weight. I can also imagine a ping-pong player transfusing, since it is a game of constant, rapid motion. Better oxygenation is going to provide some benefit. How do we know that D.O. didn't take CB during the off-season, then withdraw blood and transfuse before a match?

I understand this is pretty unlikely, but do ping-pong players get tested for blood doping, EPO, etc.? If they do, this is a legitimate possibility. If not, what's to stop them from doing it?

I'm in complete agreement with everything you've written. I don't know if Clen could help a ping-ponger, but I think it's possible.

The reason that all five German pongers weren't booked (instead of just Ovtcharov) is that the other four tested negative in their official dope tests. The Clen in their systems was detected by an unofficial test.

I imagine that ponger samples are subjected to the same panels as other athletes. Maybe somebody knows for sure how that works.

 

[ChrisE]

But the thing is, they DONT need to prove blood transfusions. They already have a posative test which meets the criteria for stipping his title and a 2 year ban.

Alberto Contador needs to prove on the balance of probabilities (ie what a reasonable person might beleive) that the only explanation is that he ate contaminated food.

WADA (who will appeal if the Spanish authorities do not ban him) do not have to PROVE that blood transfusions happened - only that transfusions are a reasonable and possible explanation.

Exactly. The rule is what it is, and he has returned a positive A and B sample. It is not possible IMO to prove he ate meat that was contaminated. The remains of the meat is in a sewer somewhere in the Pyrenees. Case closed.

Why WADA has to prove anything at all is beyond me, or even present anything other than the positive and the established sanctioning protocol. If that is the case, then have some "buts" in the official sanctioning procedure. Or, do something sensible like have minimum thresholds instead of this assinine IMO absolute black/white issue on having clen in your system. This is all 20/20 now; the barn door is open.

It is funny watching the AC fanboys in here tripping over themselves, tying themselves into knots, trying to rationalize a way for him to get out of this though the rules are clearly stated. I wonder if they think AC is a doper? If so, I wonder why some of these people didn't seem so "rational" when LA's 5year old pis turned up with EPO. That seems much more gray area to me vs an A and B positive during the recent TdF. But then again only "fanboys" of LA like SparticusRox are the ones that get ridiculed for questioning procedure.

At least AC has failed something per established protocol, and anybody this side of comatose knows he is dirty for much more than clen. The hypocrisy runs rampant in the clinic.

 

[python]

can someone explain how did armstrong and his epo positives make into this thread ? have we not seen before his fanboys bringing it in every thread to derail them ? in fact the same fanboys who get banned repeatedly for the same and the same offtopic ? can someone explain ?

 

[Barrus]

No more discussion about Armstrong in this or any other thread that does not in any way have anything to do with him. I am getting sick and tired of the Armstrong off-topic banter in threads that do not pertain to him in the slightest

 

[rolfrae]

The hypocrisy runs rampant in the clinic.

Tend to agree with you there. Had so many posters unprepared to give any rider that has tested positive the benefit of the doubt, and yet when Contador tests positive they don't seem quite so prepared to condemn him.

 

[python]

Tend to agree with you there. Had so many posters unprepared to give any rider that has tested positive the benefit of the doubt, and yet when Contador tests positive they don't seem quite so prepared to condemn him.

this thread is about thoughts and ideas as to why the case is taking so long. so many posited their thoughts and pointed to high probability of a real doping case by berto. there are are several dozen of threads discussing clinic hypocrisy and contador's doping.

a poster banned multiple times for flaming and bating almost every thread he enters by raging about armstrong, managed to finally bring armstrong here too whilst noone one before him did. do we really need it in this thread ?

 

[Merckx index]

It seems to me that this thread has produced two possible reasons for the delay with Bert’s case:

1) HustonHammer:

The problem is if they want to throw the book at him, they already have all they need right now because the rules are very black and white. The guy had dope in his system. Full stop. AC has to prove that he had no fault in the matter; as far a I know, there is zero precedent for success at that with CAS.

Therefore, the waiting can only mean they are considering backing off from a full penalty. And since they know that will stink to high heaven, they're getting their ducks in a row to make the case that they've only served justice. Their initial plan was to keep the whole thing hushed up and the only reason they dropped that was the German media learning about it through a leak. Fat Pat's actions make his intentions pretty clear.

2) Python:

5 german athletes tested positive for clenbuterol - no charges filed, no appeals expected from wada. Why ?

any clenbuterol found is supposed to result in a doping violation automatically. you, among others, expect that from contador. 5 germans avoided it. their urines were tested and found with clen by the same lab that tested berto. why are they not charged ?

what i suggested is that these are the questions wada is struggling with when they consider contador's case which is essentially the same - about clenbuterol positive.

HH’s theory is the cynical one (and I don’t mean that pejoratively; if you aren’t a cynic, you don’t understand what’s going on). Basically, the idea is that UCI went into this knowing how they wanted it to come out, and now are trying to find a way of justifying the result they want. Python is arguing that there is still an honest debate about science going on behind the scenes.

I think either of these scenarios is possible. HH’s key point is that a CB positive is supposed to mean an AAF. There isn’t supposed to be any debate, or even if there is, the debate comes after the announcement of a sanction. We didn’t need McQuaid’s unfortunate statement to know that there is preferential treatment in this case.

OTOH, the evidence is pretty strong that Bert did not take CB intentionally during the Tour. That means either it was meat contamination, in which case he should get off just like the ping-pong player, or blood doping. But no one wants to accuse the TDF winner of blood doping without slam-dunk evidence, evidence so clear that no one can possibly believe Bert’s protestations. Blood doping is a lot more serious than CB doping. In this view, UCI/WADA’s basic problem is that they can’t come up with this evidence. They know that meat contamination is unlikely, but they can’t make a strong enough case for the alternative.

P.S. Has this been posted before: http://www.universalsports.com/blogs/blog=...tid=496810.html

Sounds like UCI still has a lot invested in getting Bert off.

 

[python]

merckx, i need to correct you.

i never excluded the possibility that the uci went into the case with preconceived ideas attempting to soften an impact on contador. i firmly believe in corrupt uci. what happen then and how we found ourselves in the protracted mode is still to be revealed.

what i suggested was that regardless of the uci initial position we are now in the situation where various hypothesis need to be resolved by additional studies and testing as the situation got more complicated. the first ever clenbuterol acquittal does not make things any simpler.

i posited my thoughts as to what i think may be delaying the case in this post
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=366405&postcount=103

it's a mix of science, politics and legal.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It seems to me that this thread has produced two possible reasons for the delay with Bert’s case:

1) HustonHammer:



2) Python:



HH’s theory is the cynical one (and I don’t mean that pejoratively; if you aren’t a cynic, you don’t understand what’s going on). Basically, the idea is that UCI went into this knowing how they wanted it to come out, and now are trying to find a way of justifying the result they want. Python is arguing that there is still an honest debate about science going on behind the scenes.

I think either of these scenarios is possible. HH’s key point is that a CB positive is supposed to mean an AAF. There isn’t supposed to be any debate, or even if there is, the debate comes after the announcement of a sanction. We didn’t need McQuaid’s unfortunate statement to know that there is preferential treatment in this case.

OTOH, the evidence is pretty strong that Bert did not take CB intentionally during the Tour. That means either it was meat contamination, in which case he should get off just like the ping-pong player, or blood doping. But no one wants to accuse the TDF winner of blood doping without slam-dunk evidence, evidence so clear that no one can possibly believe Bert’s protestations. Blood doping is a lot more serious than CB doping. In this view, UCI/WADA’s basic problem is that they can’t come up with this evidence. They know that meat contamination is unlikely, but they can’t make a strong enough case for the alternative.

P.S. Has this been posted before: http://www.universalsports.com/blogs/blog=...tid=496810.html

Sounds like UCI still has a lot invested in getting Bert off.

Ok this is the (second updated) Press release from the UCI.

There is no "supposed to be an AFF" - it is and has been acknowledged as such by the UCI & the rider in his admission.

Press release - Adverse analytical finding for Alberto Contador

Date:
30.09.2010

Description: The UCI confirmed today that Spanish rider Alberto Contador returned an adverse analytical finding for clenbuterol following the analysis of urine sample taken during an in competition test on 21st July 2010 on the second rest day of the Tour de France.

This result was reported by the WADA accredited laboratory in Cologne to UCI and WADA simultaneously.

The concentration found by the laboratory was estimated at 50 picograms (or 0,000 000 000 05 grams per ml).

In view of this very small concentration and in consultation with WADA, the UCI immediately had the proper results management proceedings conducted including the analysis of B sample that confirmed the first result. The rider, who had already put an end to his cycling season before the result was known, was nevertheless formally and provisionally suspended as is prescribed by the World Anti-Doping Code.

This case required further scientific investigation before any conclusion could be drawn.

The UCI continues working with the scientific support of WADA to analyse all the elements that are relevant to the case. This further investigation may take some more time.

In order to protect the integrity of the proceedings and in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI will refrain from making any further comments until the management of this adverse analytical finding has been completed.

UCI Press Services

The UCI's only role is in the "results management" -which is to ensure that the proper process has been followed by the laboratory and notifying the rider.

It is up to Contador - not the UCI or WADA - to explain his AAF, and provide grounds for a "No Fault or Negligence".
The bringing up of the 'blood bag' theory has no relevance to his AAF.

 

[Merckx index]

All right, I shouldn't have used the term AAF. This is the key passage:

This case required further scientific investigation before any conclusion could be drawn.

I don't recall reading this statement when Floyd's positive was announced. Maybe it's standard for something like CB in small doses, but was a similar statement made when the RS rider tested positive? Why should it have been--for him or for Bert--if CB is truly a "nonthreshold" drug? Nonthreshold is supposed to mean "further scientific investigation" is not required.

 

[rolfrae]

this thread is about thoughts and ideas as to why the case is taking so long. so many posited their thoughts and pointed to high probability of a real doping case by berto. there are are several dozen of threads discussing clinic hypocrisy and contador's doping.

a poster banned multiple times for flaming and bating almost every thread he enters by raging about armstrong, managed to finally bring armstrong here too whilst noone one before him did. do we really need it in this thread ?

Calm down! You mentioned the Texan, I didn't. Perhaps this level of hypocrisy is why the case against AC is taking so long. The UCI, just like many members of this forum, can't quite seem to accept that he has actually tested positive. (That's the one part of the story that is beyond question.) For some he was the sport's bright new hope but for others he was just an extension of the past. (In case you can't tell, I count myself amongst the latter.)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

All right, I shouldn't have used the term AAF. This is the key passage:



I don't recall reading this statement when Floyd's positive was announced. Maybe it's standard for something like CB in small doses, but was a similar statement made when the RS rider tested positive? Why should it have been--for him or for Bert--if CB is truly a "nonthreshold" drug? Nonthreshold is supposed to mean "further scientific investigation" is not required.

Floyds was (IIRC) a 'non negative' ...... this was Fuyu Li's clenbuterol AAF.

Press release - Li Fuyu provisionally suspended

Date:
22.04.2010

Description: Earlier today, the UCI advised Chinese rider Li Fuyu that he is provisionally suspended. The decision to provisionally suspend Mr Fuyu was made in response to a report from the WADA accredited laboratory in Ghent indicating an Adverse Analytical Finding of Clenbuterol in a urine sample collected from him at an in-competition test during the Dwaars Door Vlaanderen on 23 March 2010.

The provisional suspension remains in force until a hearing panel convened by the Chinese Cycling Federation determines whether Mr Fuyu has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 21 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

Mr Fuyu has the right to request and attend the analyses of his B sample.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the UCI is unable to provide any additional information at this time.

UCI Press Services

 

[Merckx index]

Description: Earlier today, the UCI advised Chinese rider Li Fuyu that he is provisionally suspended. The decision to provisionally suspend Mr Fuyu was made in response to a report from the WADA accredited laboratory in Ghent indicating an Adverse Analytical Finding of Clenbuterol in a urine sample collected from him at an in-competition test during the Dwaars Door Vlaanderen on 23 March 2010.

The provisional suspension remains in force until a hearing panel convened by the Chinese Cycling Federation determines whether Mr Fuyu has committed an anti-doping rule violation under Article 21 of the UCI Anti-Doping Rules.

Mr Fuyu has the right to request and attend the analyses of his B sample.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code and the UCI Anti-Doping Rules, the UCI is unable to provide any additional information at this time.

This is the standard notification, but it's not what happened in Bert's case. In the first place, of course, there was no announcement of any positive until weeks after the fact. In the second place, Fuyu's suspension was stated as "provisional" largely because the B sample had not yet been tested at the time of the announcement. Same with the initial situation with Floyd.

After Floyd's B tested positive, he was effectively regarded as a doper, except for supporters who began to challenge the science. Same with Fuyu, who was fired by Bruyneel. Yet Bert has tested positive both A and B, and remains in limbo in a way neither of those other riders--or any number of other examples--did. He has not been fired by Riis, as would be standard for any other rider on any other team after a B positive, and his picture even flashed up on the screeen at the TDF presentation.

Again, "further scientific investigation is required" is a statement I never heard associated with any other rider who tested positive A and B. Of course they have a right to challenge the findings, but at that point it becomes a matter of finding something wrong with the science. The onus is entirely on them, whereas in Bert's case it's UCI and maybe WADA scrambling to investigate the science further.

So while Bert may have acknowledged an AAF--my bad there--HH's point remains: that Bert's case is not at the same point where other cases normally are after A and B test positive. He is not, unlike Floyd, being told: you are guilty, unless you can prove we did something wrong in our test. Even in the case of the ping-pong player, I think it was the athlete who had to pursue the case, bringing forth the evidence that the meat was contaminated. In Bert's case, it's the officials who are taking the initiative.

 

[peloton]

He has not been fired by Riis, as would be standard for any other rider on any other team after a B positive

How could Riis fire him since he is still an Astana rider???

 

[flicker]

How could Riis fire him since he is still an Astana rider???

Does alberto get his sponsorship payments while suspended? specialized selle itakie bike seats astana?

 

[python]

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.

 

[flicker]

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.

UCI is probably in a quandry as to how to deal with Contador. He is way to high profile to be-head plus Spanish cycling( and its economy)is about to tank on its own without Contadors help.

 

[HoustonHammer]

This is the standard notification, but it's not what happened in Bert's case. In the first place, of course, there was no announcement of any positive until weeks after the fact. In the second place, Fuyu's suspension was stated as "provisional" largely because the B sample had not yet been tested at the time of the announcement. Same with the initial situation with Floyd.

After Floyd's B tested positive, he was effectively regarded as a doper, except for supporters who began to challenge the science. Same with Fuyu, who was fired by Bruyneel. Yet Bert has tested positive both A and B, and remains in limbo in a way neither of those other riders--or any number of other examples--did. He has not been fired by Riis, as would be standard for any other rider on any other team after a B positive, and his picture even flashed up on the screeen at the TDF presentation.

Again, "further scientific investigation is required" is a statement I never heard associated with any other rider who tested positive A and B. Of course they have a right to challenge the findings, but at that point it becomes a matter of finding something wrong with the science. The onus is entirely on them, whereas in Bert's case it's UCI and maybe WADA scrambling to investigate the science further.

So while Bert may have acknowledged an AAF--my bad there--HH's point remains: that Bert's case is not at the same point where other cases normally are after A and B test positive. He is not, unlike Floyd, being told: you are guilty, unless you can prove we did something wrong in our test. Even in the case of the ping-pong player, I think it was the athlete who had to pursue the case, bringing forth the evidence that the meat was contaminated. In Bert's case, it's the officials who are taking the initiative.

It's an AAF; no need to dance around it. Your use of that term is entirely appropriate and follows what UCI themselves have announced.

The interesting part now is that we see daylight between UCI and WADA. UCI seem desperate to find a way to keep Clentador out of trouble, and McQuaid says they're waiting on results from WADA. But WADA Director Howman is saying he doesn't know what McQuaid is talking about and is going to call him for clarification.

There might have been an opportunity early on for UCI to jam through a wrist-slap for their boy, but that's gone now. WADA has a big stake in taking a tough line, and now that it's exploded, they know it will be a massive scandal if they let it slide the way UCI wants them to.