UCI Won't Speed Up Clentador Decision

[scribe]

no it is not relevant.
this thread is about time delays in contador's case, not about armstrong samples handling. it's only relevant if your brain is stuck on proving your grudges against others.

Thank you for the extended explanation, Mr appendage of moderator.

 

[Barrus]

Look I'm not going to discuss it in this topic, but keep Armstrong out of threads that do not concern him. Next time I see this you will immediately get an infraction

 

[python]

reported......

 

[hfer07]

Having DiLuca made a deal with CONI, then today Pellizoti is Acquitted, & to top it, Vino was let go to pay for the 07 positive--- I honestly see the Contador case buried in a month when everybody is enjoying the holidays & most of all-when nobody can do a thing to impede it.

 

[scribe]

reported......

I've posted on sites that moderate strictly against brat tactics. Reporting and posting has much should lead to disciplinary action. Mods have better things to do than chase grudge matches. Like removing legitimate threatening behaviour.

 

[python]

I'm pretty sure WADA has acknowledged the reported DEHP test results for Contador are real.

if so please point to the link where it was specifically acknowledged that the test belonged to contador or where it was spoken about in other than general terms, that is that it was applied during the tour. again, it might have been, but there is a difference between might and was.

 

[scribe]

Having DiLuca made a deal with CONI, then today Pellizoti is Acquitted, & to top it, Vino was let go to pay for the 07 positive--- I honestly see the Contador case buried in a month when everybody is enjoying the holidays & most of all-when nobody can do a thing to impede it.

I wonder if it can go away so easily. There are a lot of riders who might like a fair shake next season against those that would use doping to win.

 

[hrotha]

Okay, without getting you know who into the discussion, maybe Berzin can explain why waiving a positive from a high-profile rider is a good thing for the sport and how it won't lead to an even more unfair system where some people are allowed to get away with stuff others would be punished for if caught.

 

[python]

Okay, without getting you know who into the discussion, maybe Berzin can explain why waiving a positive from a high-profile rider is a good thing for the sport and how it won't lead to an even more unfair system where some people are allowed to get away with stuff others would be punished for if caught.

is this thread about the fairness of the system ?

 

[scribe]

Okay, without getting you know who into the discussion, maybe Berzin can explain why waiving a positive from a high-profile rider is a good thing for the sport and how it won't lead to an even more unfair system where some people are allowed to get away with stuff others would be punished for if caught.

While no 2 situations are precisely equal, there are loads of cases that were handled much more sharply than the proposal Berzin came up with. Of course, the ping ponger is the exception, and that other situation involving an unnamed person.

 

[hrotha]

if so please point to the link where it was specifically acknowledged that the test belonged to contador or where it was spoken about in other than general terms, that is that it was applied during the tour. again, it might have been, but there is a difference between might and was.

If that's the kind of thing you're looking for of course you'll be disappointed. No one's going to talk openly about a test that should have remained secret and which hasn't been validated yet, but in my mind stuff like this makes it pretty clear the reports are true. You may disagree, of course.

is this thread about the fairness of the system ?

It's a reply to a previous post by Berzin where he explained what he thought will happen and previous posts where he has explained what he thought should happen. If you weren't concerned about those earlier posts, I don't see why you'd be concerned about a reply.

 

[scribe]

If that's the kind of thing you're looking for of course you'll be disappointed. No one's going to talk openly about a test that should have remained secret and which hasn't been validated yet, but in my mind stuff like this makes it pretty clear the reports are true. You may disagree, of course.

Plausible deniability only applies to certain riders, in spite of a SLOWING down of this investigation by the UCI. This is another unwritten rule established by the UCI, stretching back over 10 years ago, as has been discussed ad nauseum in many other more relevant threads.

It would be good if WADA stuck to their guns and forced along a definitive and decisive action regarding plasticizers.

 

[python]

If that's the kind of thing you're looking for of course you'll be disappointed. No one's going to talk openly about a test that should have remained secret and which hasn't been validated yet, but in my mind stuff like this makes it pretty clear the reports are true. You may disagree, of course.

It's a reply to a previous post by Berzin where he explained what he thought will happen and previous posts where he has explained what he thought should happen. If you weren't concerned about those earlier posts, I don't see why you'd be concerned about a reply.

you see there is a difference - in my mind - between what's actually been f actualized and what's been rumoured or leaked.

if you try to assess something the way arbitration panels do, you'd have to wait for a confirmation of a rumour or a leak, otherwise you're going in a direction you wish or a rumour sends you.

otoh, if you believe in something strongly, you sure can construct a scenario in your own mind that does not need confirmation and makes everything remotely related as the proof you already have arrived at.

that's where i don't stand.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you see there is a difference - in my mind - between what's actually been f actualized and what's been rumoured or leaked.

if you try to assess something the way arbitration panels do, you'd have to wait for a confirmation of a rumour or a leak, otherwise you're going in a direction you wish or a rumour sends you.

otoh, if you believe in something strongly, you sure can construct a scenario in your own mind that does not need confirmation and makes everything remotely related as the proof you already have arrived at.

that's where i don't stand.

Hold on.... is that not what you keep doing by referring to a possible blood transfusion or the platizier test.

Contador has had an AAF (A+B) for Clenbuterol, nothing more, nothing less.

Its now Contadors responsibility to suggest some other way on how Clen was found in his sample.
Not the UCI nor WADA.

 

[Berzin]

Cynicism and pragmatism color my opinions about this matter.

But one thing doesn't change-the level of clenbutarol isn't sufficient to warrant a draconian two-year ban.

Is it fair? If its' fairness you want, you're not going to get it from the people who are in charge of cycling today. They are not going to suddenly apply a level playing field when the very bureaucracies they work for are corrupt and always at odds with each other.

They are looking at their bottom lines and realizing that no Contador is no good for them. They can give him a token suspension that will keep him out of most early season races, but they need him at the Tour.

Now, if it were EPO, HgH, or testosterone then they would have no choice and the matter would be closed. But it's not.

And the plasticizer thing? Get that out of your heads. That test isn't even sanctioned by WADA. 40% of his blood volume could have been solid plastic and by law they could not have nailed him for transfusing.

It is not Contador that is wrong with cycling. It is the system. What good did suspending DiLuca do? All it did was deny us the pleasure of watching him race. Didn't we just have a doping scandal a few weeks ago in Italy, another big one? And we'll have another one after that.

If Contador's doctor isn't taken to task over this situation, the clenbutarol and the plasticizers, he will be free to do the same thing to other riders if Contador is banned. So...in light of that, I ask the question-when are deterrents NOT deterrents? When the offending parties remain virtually intact and the riders are the ones who pay the price.

 

[python]

Hold on.... is that not what you keep doing by referring to a possible blood transfusion or the platizier test.

Contador has had an AAF (A+B) for Clenbuterol, nothing more, nothing less.

Its now Contadors responsibility to suggest some other way on how Clen was found in his sample.
Not the UCI nor WADA.

no, i ddn't. you misunderstood my position on the dehp test. i said it's legally unreliable as a stand alone test and explained why. in detail.

the difference between my position on contador's blood transfusion and some others is that i clearly stated up thread, that given the sports history, it's my gut feeling that he transfused but in my mind i really don't know this yet as the details are not available. I also said, that entertaining different scenarios of the results management delay by the uci is likely explained by the work around his possible blood transfusion. if yes, contador is likely to face much than clen, if no, though it's hardly believable, he walks. that's what i said.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cynicism and pragmatism color my opinions about this matter.

But one thing doesn't change-the level of clenbutarol isn't sufficient to warrant a draconian two-year ban.

Is it fair? If its' fairness you want, you're not going to get it from the people who are in charge of cycling today. They are not going to suddenly apply a level playing field when the very bureaucracies they work for are corrupt and always at odds with each other.

They are looking at their bottom lines and realizing that no Contador is no good for them. They can give him a token suspension that will keep him out of most early season races, but they need him at the Tour.

Now, if it were EPO, HgH, or testosterone then they would have no choice and the matter would be closed. But it's not. And the plasticizer thing? Get that out of your heads, that test isn't even sanctioned by WADA. 40% of his blood volume could have been solid plastic and by law they could not have nailed him for transfusing.

It has coloured your opinion - Clen is a 'specified substance (ie a prohibited Substance) which if unchallanged will lead to a 2year ban.

To the Blue - hmm, so the UCI would rather let a marketable doper win..... I agree, but haven't we seen this before and how does that develop the sport.

 

[hfer07]

I wonder if it can go away so easily. There are a lot of riders who might like a fair shake next season against those that would use doping to win.

that "fairness" you refer to does not exist--Dopers with the medical edge & the political backing/influence are set to prevail. If UCI & WADA were serious in their ruling, a decision to ban him should have been made public a month ago- Berto came up with that stupid "meat contamination" excuse & UCI seems to pursuit/embrace it so time takes its toll in the case to make matters easier to dump it...
I personally don't want to see it go away in that fashion either, but we're talking about the all almighty UCI where repentant dopers get their way....

 

[python]

It has coloured your opinion - Clen is a 'specified substance (ie a prohibited Substance) which if unchallanged will lead to a 2year ban.

To the Blue - hmm, so the UCI would rather let a marketable doper win..... I agree, but haven't we seen this before and how does that develop the sport.

i don't follow berzin's suggestion but you're incorrect, i believe, clen is not a specified substance according to wada code and several cas rulings. there is a definition some place in wadc.

 

[Berzin]

To the Blue - hmm, so the UCI would rather let a marketable doper win..... I agree, but haven't we seen this before and how does that develop the sport.

If we want the sport to develop, we would have to start from the top down.

If you start from the riders up, it will never get past that point. It will stay there like it has. The men in positions of power will do what they can to consolidate their positions-how easier to do that than to put the onus of all doping positives squarely on the shoulders of the riders when the reality is they are the last cog in the whole machine?

This is how we got from Hein Vergruggen to Pat McQuaid. They are virtually the same person. And the person being groomed for McQuaids' position when he decides to step down will be a carbon copy of him.

 

[Merckx index]

They are looking at their bottom lines and realizing that no Contador is no good for them. They can give him a token suspension that will keep him out of most early season races, but they need him at the Tour.

A lot of people assume this is the case, and it's certainly a good explanation as to why the case is dragging on. But why the effort to protect AC and not other winners? Floyd was thrown under the bus, no effort to protect him. Was it because he only won one Tour, was not as big a name as Bert? Or because testosterone is a little bigger deal than clenbuterol? There were enough complexities in the science to get Floyd off if someone in charge had really wanted to, plus the Landaluze precedent.

How about Basso and Ullrich? They were promising to wage a TDF for the ages, and they both got suspended the day before the race started. Neither had tested positive at the time, and neither has since. Again, if the powers that be had really wanted to have them in the race, they could have arranged it. What happened to the protection racket then?

So what's different about Bert? Is it the idea that the more TDFs you win, the harder it is to sanction you? You become too important to be suspended? But is Bert today really that much bigger a star than Ulle was in 2006? Surely Bert vs. Andy is not a bigger attraction than Ulle vs. Basso was back then.

Or could it be a matter of time? There was a blood-letting in 1998, then the TDF went through a (relatively) calm period. Then in 2006 the sh-t hit the fan again. Now maybe it's considered to be a calm period, and too soon for a bust of a major star?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

no, i ddn't. you misunderstood my position on the dehp test. i said it's legally unreliable as a stand alone test and explained why. in detail.

the difference between my position on contador's blood transfusion and some others is that i clearly stated up thread, that given the sports history, it's my gut feeling that he transfused but in my mind i really don't know this yet as the details are not available. I also said, that entertaining different scenarios of the results management delay by the uci is likely explained by the work around his possible blood transfusion. if yes, contador is likely to face much than clen, if no, though it's hardly believable, he walks. that's what i said.

Again - forget the blood doping, or dhep test, or if he has an outstanding parking ticket, its all irrelavant.

He has Clen in his system - thats it.
Its not up to the UCI to 'delay' the case - it is up to Contador to speed it up so he can contest his AAF.

 

[HoustonHammer]

The one thing that might have saved Berto here is the DEHP test. If he had a very low value, he could have argued that that proved he did not transfuse the day that CB entered his system. Since everyone accepts it's between contaminated meat and transfusion, that would virtually force WADA to concede that it was contaminated meat.

But according to the German lab, Bert had a high DEHP value. Maybe not high enough to prove blood transfusion with any certainty, but still high enough NOT to prove he DIDN'T transfuse. The value seems to be in a range where it doesn't prove either did or didn't with any confidence. Throwing everything back to where we are now.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume what 'everyone' accepts. People here might accept it, and RFEC and UCI might too. But WADA and CAS are under no obligation to pick one of those alternatives, or any other for that matter. They have no obligation to explain how the Clen got there; the burden is all on AC. If he wants a break, he has to prove how the Clen got into his system. He gets zero benefit from excluding any particular source of the prohibited substance.

 

[scribe]

They traced salmonella contamination in the US back to a single farm, I don't think it would difficult to trace the meat back to it's source and prove the farmer used Clen.

 

[scribe]

If we want the sport to develop, we would have to start from the top down.

If you start from the riders up, it will never get past that point. It will stay there like it has. The men in positions of power will do what they can to consolidate their positions-how easier to do that than to put the onus of all doping positives squarely on the shoulders of the riders when the reality is they are the last cog in the whole machine?

This is how we got from Hein Vergruggen to Pat McQuaid. They are virtually the same person. And the person being groomed for McQuaids' position when he decides to step down will be a carbon copy of him.

Of course, they are all limited by science's ability to prove positives in doping controls. There are some that believe they don't want call positives as result of corruption. But even the heroes of anti-doping struggle with the limitations of testing. Ashedon himself showed up recently with studies to prove that riders such as Landis were microdosing to maintain consistent crit levels to get around testing. Well, they were doing that at least 6 years ago, if not earlier.

If you want to put pressure on doping, you do everything you can and you do it at all levels. Let guys like AC walk and you have a bunch of riders more determined than ever to do whatever it takes to beat him.