WADA has beef with Contador meat claims

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 4, 2010
83
0
0
many said:
innocence until proven guilty is an admirable ideal
I do so absoluetly ****** hate this messing-about with "innocence until proven guilty"!

"Presumption of innocence" was a spectacular achievement of the modern, civil, "bourgeois" society: No longer an "absolute" emperor, but a "state above citizens" in VERY narrow confines. It protects us from arbitrary acts by authorities! We should value it, AND ****** NOT dilute that fundamental right by applying it to civil law aspects of our liking!

Please allow me to cite Wikipedia:
- With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof.
- With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
- The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.
No room for turture, no room for a "guilty" ruling without at least basic procedures, no "L'Etat c'est moi" -- *hooray* Believe me, you would not want it any different. As a citizen. With regards to your state. Here "PoI" ends!

There is simply no "state" in WADA, TAS or UCI. And that is a good thing.

You people drag that piece of advancement down, sheepishly. Keep it out of civil law, please! Thanks.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
cprior said:
I do so absoluetly ****** hate this messing-about with "innocence until proven guilty"!

"Presumption of innocence" was a spectacular achievement of the modern, civil, "bourgeois" society: No longer an "absolute" emperor, but a "state above citizens" in VERY narrow confines. It protects us from arbitrary acts by authorities! We should value it, AND ****** NOT dilute that fundamental right by applying it to civil law aspects of our liking!

Please allow me to cite Wikipedia:


No room for turture, no room for a "guilty" ruling without at least basic procedures, no "L'Etat c'est moi" -- *hooray* Believe me, you would not want it any different. As a citizen. With regards to your state. Here "PoI" ends!

There is simply no "state" in WADA, TAS or UCI. And that is a good thing.

You people drag that piece of advancement down, sheepishly. Keep it out of civil law, please! Thanks.
You took the quote out of context: I would agree that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is an admirable ideal. However, they (the riders) know the rules and agree to abide by them. It is no different than if you or I are required to submit for drug testing for employment. We agree to do so, and we know that we will possibly be fired if something shows up. You don’t have the luxury of arguing that it came from contaminated meat or some such nonsense. You are handed your pink slip because you signed a form indicating you knew your rights and the consequences if you failed -- just like the riders. It may not be fair, but those are the rules. What I find disturbing is how long it takes to have these sanctions implemented and all the back dating rubbish. 2 years is 2 years, not 15 or 18 months – 24 months is two years!

It's not about civil law, becuse it doesn't apply here. It has to do with the rules and regulations of the UCI and WADA. Im not sure what your argument is.
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Unless they find a new product to contain the blood in, the speeds up the mountains will drop. Not the overall average speed.
yes good clarification I am sure an average speed of 55 kmh on 3000 flat kilometres would see Wiggins in contention for second place
 
Sep 19, 2009
807
0
0
Stick a fork in AC, he's done.
Good thing we have this forum so we can join in and chew the fat.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
0
0
Tastes like chicken

Vonn Brinkman said:
...I get that this is also difficult, and that the WADA and UCI have to fight against doping, but I still find it unfair and useless. Like the Chicken said: I'd rather let a few guilty guys walk than punish one innocent man.
The guy had a banned substance in his body, there is nothing unfair about this process. It would be unfair not to take action. And I think the Chicken really wants guilty people to ride, not walk.

Winterfold said:
...
Good old WADA interfering with us again because we make an effort to catch our dopers.

Why dont they FO out of it and start insisting that eg Champions League Football or tennis do ANY tests at all.
I think WADA is going public because they've seen these things dragged out before. With all the talk about corruption within the UCI I don't mind seeing an independent agency acting as a watchdog. I agree with you that cycling does more to catch dopers than other sports, I just wish I could believe that they do so fairly with the same rules applied to all.
 
May 21, 2010
581
0
0
miloman said:
You took the quote out of context: I would agree that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is an admirable ideal. However, they (the riders) know the rules and agree to abide by them. It is no different than if you or I are required to submit for drug testing for employment. We agree to do so, and we know that we will possibly be fired if something shows up. You don’t have the luxury of arguing that it came from contaminated meat or some such nonsense. You are handed your pink slip because you signed a form indicating you knew your rights and the consequences if you failed -- just like the riders. It may not be fair, but those are the rules. What I find disturbing is how long it takes to have these sanctions implemented and all the back dating rubbish. 2 years is 2 years, not 15 or 18 months – 24 months is two years!

It's not about civil law, becuse it doesn't apply here. It has to do with the rules and regulations of the UCI and WADA. Im not sure what your argument is.
Had you not repeated your post I probably would have let this go but...
Your analogy is bad.

miloman said:
You don’t have the luxury of arguing that it came from contaminated meat or some such nonsense.
Really? Something tells me if they go to all the trouble (and expense) to relocate you and you then fail the drug test they'll probably a). make you take it again or b). waive it entirely. And furthermore, your employer will only test you once. They cannot select people at random for a test even if they suspect you of drug taking on the job. They have to test the entire work staff, and let's face it, that ain't gonna' happen.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
Wada has beef with Contador meat claims:

It's gone far beyond fishy. Pigs will fly before Pound is convinced of the steak theory. Fat McQuack's chicken have come home to roost.
 
Sep 19, 2009
807
0
0
Elagabalus said:
Burn Contador at the Steak!!!


I'm actually surprised this one hasn't already been used :)
They won't, with so many GT wins, he's one of the sacred cows of cycling right now
 
Jan 2, 2010
361
0
0
the game is up for contador i feel.

even if guilty or not WADA will enforce the 2 year ban (especially as with pellizotti this will rumble on for about a year + before a decision is made and hence half the sentence will be done so there wont be much point of an appeal)

he even admitted it himself the other day when he said he may retire regardless of the decision - which is pretty much an admission of guilt
 
May 24, 2010
13
0
8,530
Frosty said:
Can we mooooove on from these cow puns now please?:)
Sorry Frosty, we'll stop now :)

I reckon Alberto is hamming it up with his steak claims. If he had put some fork on his fork, his bacon would have been saved.

Also, if he needed the Clen to improve his performance, was he simply trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

:D
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
Does anyone think there is any meat in the I'll retire threat - is he calling the MooCI's bluff?

Too bad (or good I cant decide?)WADA will take over from here.

He can do his ban and come back and still win a stack of Tours.

Methinks he does protest moo much.

Damn completely outdone on bovine puns by a load of Euros!! :)
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
I lol every time I see that jpeg. I can't decide if that is Contador's team yelling at Astana for the beef, or if it's the UCI hollering at Contador on the other end of the phone.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Winterfold said:
Does anyone think there is any meat in the I'll retire threat - is he calling the MooCI's bluff?

Too bad (or good I cant decide?)WADA will take over from here.

He can do his ban and come back and still win a stack of Tours.


Methinks he does protest moo much.

Damn completely outdone on bovine puns by a load of Euros!! :)
Returning to form when he returns will have some extreme consequences.
 
May 26, 2009
377
0
0
miloman said:
You took the quote out of context: I would agree that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is an admirable ideal. However, they (the riders) know the rules and agree to abide by them.

It may not be fair, but those are the rules.

It's not about civil law, becuse it doesn't apply here. It has to do with the rules and regulations of the UCI and WADA. Im not sure what your argument is.
I think the problem some people (including myself) have with the notion of 'enforcing the rules, even if unfair' in an anti-doping context is that the entire premise of doping penalties is about punishing unfairness.

For the UCI to argue that 'fair or not, the rules are the rules' despite uncertainties about guilt will risk undermining public confidence in future beyond-doubt legitimate positive results - and help dopers to create an environment where the legitimacy of future positive tests can be called into doubt for the general public.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
yourwelcome said:
I think the problem some people (including myself) have with the notion of 'enforcing the rules, even if unfair' in an anti-doping context is that the entire premise of doping penalties is about punishing unfairness.

For the UCI to argue that 'fair or not, the rules are the rules' despite uncertainties about guilt will risk undermining public confidence in future beyond-doubt legitimate positive results - and help dopers to create an environment where the legitimacy of future positive tests can be called into doubt for the general public.
The certainty of guilt......is rather certain. Right now, there is a struggle going on regarding what really is for the good of cycling. There are definitely elements that would rather see him get 3 months suspension AND keep his title. There are lots of people with the power to mix this up, who aren't that dumb in the face of the positive control and overwhelming evidence to supporting the use of substance by Albunetral Clerbutador.
 
Apr 22, 2009
190
0
0
Vonn Brinkman said:
Not really my friend. He's alive and well. Even in contact with Saxo Bank, apparently.
Yes, and apparently willing to do or say ANYTHING to get a job from Bjarne.

Talk about a meat eater....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts