WADA reconsidering Clenbuterol levels

[python]

i think it's worth revisiting the background for the meeting on possible changes to clenbuterol ruling...it's only partially related to contador and involved a lot of other issues.

First, i recall an article that mentioned dozens of world-wide clenbuterol cases each year. this is easily amounting to several hundred of cases since clen was banned.

Until late in 2010 - the ovcharov's case - each and every clen case ended up in some type of that athlete's suspension or a ban. some received a little leniency because they were able to show contamination in their supplements or vitamins
(hardy's case).

the reasons for the rather uniform (almost automatic) banning vary. of course
many (if not most) athletes doped. some, certainly a minority, where possibly contaminated.

but it's also true that the current wada rules, (fairly or not) make it extremely difficult for an athlete who got an inadvertent contamination, to prove it. almost impossible.

we are talking about 2 wada rules: (i) principle of strict liability and (ii) absolutely no allowance for even one molecule in the athlete's system.

the first is a separate issue and has to be dealt as such.

the second, however, is 100% unfair IF it was the case of genuine, inadvertent contamination and could be shown as such. but the problem was/is it's very very difficult under the current rules.

and because, in some places (like china and mexico) the contamination was increasingly suspected (and in ovcharov's case proven), the issue of no threshold for re-emerged...

added to this should be several more factors:
-increasing sensitivity of the instruments. what previously was considered clean because it was not detectable, is suddenly becoming 'dirty'

-questions about effectiveness of cattle testing. what constitutes a 'clean' animal ? are they tested to the same sensitivity the athletes are ? what if they are not, and the athlete was found with clen ?

-legal allowance for some clen - like the eu maximum residual level (mrl) yet zero allowance for sports in the face of infinitesimal level detection

etc etc.....the real question is to properly study the contamination possibility world-wide and ONLY after that establish a fair threshold if warranted. that's what i call responsible science !

i had in mind several more issues but have to end now.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

etc etc.....the real question is to properly study the contamination possibility world-wide and ONLY after that establish a fair threshold if warranted. that's what i call responsible science !

Translation: "Even though we know that the careers and reputations of innocent athletes are being destroyed, we will allow it to continue until we properly study the issue."

How about properly studying the contamination issue before imposing rules? These clowns should be fired for incompetence.

 

[skippythepinhead]

I know Contador deserves a ban. But this entire episode smells of whitewash. I've accepted that he will receive no ban, and the international cycling establishment will position themselves to use the Lance Armstrong investigation as a tool to declare doping an "American" problem. Reality is inconsequential to questions of power.

 

[python]

Translation: "Even though we know that the careers and reputations of innocent athletes are being destroyed, we will allow it to continue until we properly study the issue."

How about properly studying the contamination issue before imposing rules? These clowns should be fired for incompetence.

damiano, my personal opinion about the threshold was stated many times and is similar to yours. yet there are realities that can't be simplified as you stated them:

(i) doping and cheating is a real problem for a fair competition
(ii) science could be messy, particularly, the analytical chemistry science (just take my word or pm me if you need more examples)
(iii) wada despite the best intentions, is a bloated, partly a political outfit. like any international organisation of the scale and function

 

[blutto]

Nope - Bugno served a 3 month suspension.

...you are, as always, so technically correct,as he did pay a very heavy price for his transgression...he did serve a three month suspension after the original two year suspension was overturned ( can't remember if the suspension was served in the off-season...but hey, he did the time...all three months..)...and then there was the pain from the massive bruising on his wrists, from which, some say, he never recovered...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The article I read talked about context not amount (although setting a threshold was mentioned), which I took to be about dealing with athletes from states where there are issues with clen being used in meat production.

As far as I can tell, any such rules wouldn't come into effect until 2013.

Needless to say dertie's fanboys will no doubt be spinning as hard as the Hamilton and Landis fanboys were before their appeals.

I didn't see any mention of states with clen being used in meat production. I assume you're aware that meat is imported and exported across borders, right? Unless you plan on installing tracking chips in every piece of meat, focusing on individual states is going to be difficult.

I didn't see anything about rules coming into effect in 2013.

Pointing out an inconsistency in a drug testing protocol doesn't make one a Contador fanboy. Just because a few self-righteous folks on here want Contador to be banned doesn't mean he should be without proper proof.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Oh for ****s sake get off your high horse. There is no need to patronise or to be a ****. I was merely adding what I had seen written in other articles.

I merely commented that the article that I read about referred to context which I took to mean that the problems of Clen in meat in Latin America and China.

I also pointed out that the article I read said that any major changes to the rules regarding clen where unlikely until 2013.

Anyway, if you want to turn it into a ****ing match then ****ing go and knock yourself out.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Oh for ****s sake get off your high horse. There is no need to patronise or to be a ****. I was merely adding what I had seen written in other articles.

I merely commented that the article that I read about referred to context which I took to mean that the problems of Clen in meat in Latin America and China.

I also pointed out that the article I read said that any major changes to the rules regarding clen where unlikely until 2013.

Anyway, if you want to turn it into a ****ing match then ****ing go and knock yourself out.

Easy there, 'roid rage. You're the only one getting worked up. I was just pointing out that, if you're going to ban a guy from his livelihood for two years, you should have a testing protocol that makes sense. You're the one who started in with the "dertie's fanboys" stuff. Chill out.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You are the one who started with the macho posturing and passive aggressive posting - not me.

I made no comment about wanting to ban people. I added a couple of things that I had noted from other articles and how I read them. All I said was that people will no doubt be spinning this, just as people span things before the Landis appeal and the Hamilton appeal. Just as Armstrong fan(boys) will spin stuff about Armstrong - such as the Armstrong/Hamilton incident. Everyone spins stories to the benefit of the riders they like. Apologies if using the term fanboys upsets you but that is the way I see it.

So if anyone needs to chill out then it is you because you completely over-reacted to a non-confrontational post.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

You are the one who started with the macho posturing and passive aggressive posting - not me.

I made no comment about wanting to ban people. I added a couple of things that I had noted from other articles and how I read them. All I said was that people will no doubt be spinning this, just as people span things before the Landis appeal and the Hamilton appeal. Apologies if using the term fanboys upsets you.

So if anyone needs to chill out then it is you because you completely over-reacted to a non-confrontational post.

How about we get back to the discussion, ok? If you see an article you want to discuss, just link it. That way, everyone knows to what you're referring.

I have no skin in the game. If Contador gets banned, it doesn't affect me one bit, other than not seeing him race, which would be disappointing. What would be even more disappointing, though, is a continuation of the Armstrong years. What I want to see is a concerted effort to fight doping, not inconsistent bans handed out for the sake of improving cycling's image.

 

[Benotti69]

Does anyone really believe Contador is a clean rider? I dont. He had Clen in his system, yes a minute amount, rules states Clen = Ban, give him his ban. He rides for Riis for chris sakes. He rode for Bruyneel, He rode for Saiz. The guy is a riding pharmacy.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Does anyone really believe Contador is a clean rider? I dont. He had Clen in his system, yes a minute amount, but who cares, give him his ban. He rides for Riis for chris sakes. He rode for Bruyneel, He rode for Saiz. The guy is a riding pharmacy.

Hey hey, stop. This title is reserved for my avatar already.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Absolutely. Only Contador and people he told were to know the proposal, with ten days to respond. Thanks to the type of leak that people seem to love, he was actually notified by a journalist at training camp before the RFEC could even get to him. The committee always said that he was innocent, and the one year was what they've read is done under Strict Liability - innocent people get banned a year because WADA is all-powerful. Contador's legal team pointed out that in the 600 pages of documents were a couple of articles that allowed for no punishment to the innocent. It had nothing to do with what politicians said.

Five picograms of clenbuterol isn't performance enhancing, and never was doping. But there's so much negative sentiment against pro cycling as a sport, and against Spanish &successful) athletes, that it's been allowed to continue. I was so excited when the story of the Mexican soccer players came out, because the world cares about soccer, and I haven't seen one article from WADA, or other players or team managers, throwing these guys under the bus.

You've got five guys from different clubs, including one that just flew in the day of the meal, and all five tested positive at once, in a test made by the Federation. I'm not posting dozens of links here, but on my twitter account I've linked to stories that are coming out from professors and Presidents of Livestock organizations. One visited seven slaughterhouses, and 74% of the meat had clenbuterol. Another said that half of the meat consumed in his whole state contains Clenbuterol.

China has a similar problem, and those two countries together have 21% of the world population. That's not taking into account South America or Vietnam or other places where the substance is widely used. To refuse to have a minimum threshold for the substance was hubris. And I doubt that any of you would care to live in a situation where you get half punishment for innocence.

The Mexicans are being totally transparent about the whole process. Two players had their B tests opened Tuesday, two more will happen today, and one Thursday. The authorities flew them to Los Angeles Friday so there could be additional tests, and those came back negative. The B Sample results will come out between next Wednesday and Friday. Various organizations were already communicating and coordinating last week so this whole thing can be wrapped up this week. The five players have Jean-Louis Dupont, one of Contador's lawyers, and the guy who brought free agency to soccer via a CAS ruling. WADA isn't messing around with these people, because they won't stand for nonsense. The Disciplinary Committee is already writing the defense in case WADA insists to FIFA that there's punishment. The only thing I haven't seen yet is the amounts, but the word picograms appeared once.

If WADA lets the soccer players go, they have no leg to stand on with Contador. It was their delay issuing the positive that kept Contador from gathering the same type of evidence the High Performance Center is. If they try to take those five guys to CAS at the same time they've publicly admitted they might change the rule, they deserve the s___ storm that will rain down on their heads.

If WADA does make the proposal, and it won't be voted on until September, it's an excellent reason to postpone the CAS hearing. For WADA to argue that a guy should lose two years of his career, millions ofEuros, and at least two grand tour victories, for something they (long overdue) don't consider a violation, has to fail.

Ideally, the soccer situation is settled before the Tour as planned. WADA decides at their meeting next week that clenbuterol contamination is a widespread problem, and as more labs get more precise at testing, they'll have positives popping up everywhere. To go on with the Contador appeal after letting other guys go, and recognizing that a threshold should exist, would just be vindictive. Let them and the UCI both drop the appeal before July 2, and some of us can enjoy the Tour, and people who still think Contador shouldn't race can have their motives questioned. Peace out.

I have asked you before - how many picograms is 'Performance enhancing'? Why haven't you informed WADA about this?

As for the "proposal" that Contador had 10 days to respond to - did it go something like this?

Hi Alberto,
We have reached an agreement and we all believe you are innocent as we read on the web that 5 picograms is not performance enhancing, but because WADA is all powerful we have decided to give you a one year penalty. Is that ok? Can you let us know in the next ten days. Thanks.

No, that is not ok. PS Please check Prime Ministers twitter feed.

Hi Alberto,
Thanks for the response. Ok, we have decided to let you off altogether - is that ok?

Thats better.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't see any mention of states with clen being used in meat production. I assume you're aware that meat is imported and exported across borders, right? Unless you plan on installing tracking chips in every piece of meat, focusing on individual states is going to be difficult.

I didn't see anything about rules coming into effect in 2013.

Pointing out an inconsistency in a drug testing protocol doesn't make one a Contador fanboy. Just because a few self-righteous folks on here want Contador to be banned doesn't mean he should be without proper proof.

Quite the opposite.

This is not about Contador, it is about the process.
Contador has said he ate contaminated meat. So, it is up to Contador to prove how the Clen got in his system - if he can show a reasonable cause then he can look for 'No (Significant) Fault or Negligence' - I would have no problem with that.

The problem is that he does not appear to have satisfied that criteria and yet RFEC let him off.

 

[Iker_Baqueiro]

Absolutely. Only Contador and people he told were to know the proposal, with ten days to respond. Thanks to the type of leak that people seem to love, he was actually notified by a journalist at training camp before the RFEC could even get to him. The committee always said that he was innocent, and the one year was what they've read is done under Strict Liability - innocent people get banned a year because WADA is all-powerful. Contador's legal team pointed out that in the 600 pages of documents were a couple of articles that allowed for no punishment to the innocent. It had nothing to do with what politicians said.

Five picograms of clenbuterol isn't performance enhancing, and never was doping. But there's so much negative sentiment against pro cycling as a sport, and against Spanish &successful) athletes, that it's been allowed to continue. I was so excited when the story of the Mexican soccer players came out, because the world cares about soccer, and I haven't seen one article from WADA, or other players or team managers, throwing these guys under the bus.

You've got five guys from different clubs, including one that just flew in the day of the meal, and all five tested positive at once, in a test made by the Federation. I'm not posting dozens of links here, but on my twitter account I've linked to stories that are coming out from professors and Presidents of Livestock organizations. One visited seven slaughterhouses, and 74% of the meat had clenbuterol. Another said that half of the meat consumed in his whole state contains Clenbuterol.

China has a similar problem, and those two countries together have 21% of the world population. That's not taking into account South America or Vietnam or other places where the substance is widely used. To refuse to have a minimum threshold for the substance was hubris. And I doubt that any of you would care to live in a situation where you get half punishment for innocence.

The Mexicans are being totally transparent about the whole process. Two players had their B tests opened Tuesday, two more will happen today, and one Thursday. The authorities flew them to Los Angeles Friday so there could be additional tests, and those came back negative. The B Sample results will come out between next Wednesday and Friday. Various organizations were already communicating and coordinating last week so this whole thing can be wrapped up this week. The five players have Jean-Louis Dupont, one of Contador's lawyers, and the guy who brought free agency to soccer via a CAS ruling. WADA isn't messing around with these people, because they won't stand for nonsense. The Disciplinary Committee is already writing the defense in case WADA insists to FIFA that there's punishment. The only thing I haven't seen yet is the amounts, but the word picograms appeared once.

If WADA lets the soccer players go, they have no leg to stand on with Contador. It was their delay issuing the positive that kept Contador from gathering the same type of evidence the High Performance Center is. If they try to take those five guys to CAS at the same time they've publicly admitted they might change the rule, they deserve the s___ storm that will rain down on their heads.

If WADA does make the proposal, and it won't be voted on until September, it's an excellent reason to postpone the CAS hearing. For WADA to argue that a guy should lose two years of his career, millions ofEuros, and at least two grand tour victories, for something they (long overdue) don't consider a violation, has to fail.

Ideally, the soccer situation is settled before the Tour as planned. WADA decides at their meeting next week that clenbuterol contamination is a widespread problem, and as more labs get more precise at testing, they'll have positives popping up everywhere. To go on with the Contador appeal after letting other guys go, and recognizing that a threshold should exist, would just be vindictive. Let them and the UCI both drop the appeal before July 2, and some of us can enjoy the Tour, and people who still think Contador shouldn't race can have their motives questioned. Peace out.

+100. I see this happening too.

What is 100% certain though, is that the soccer players will be cleared.
Then, that fact will help Contador's case. It increases the chances of Alberto being cleared too.

 

[red_flanders]

The main problem with all this is that it's been a year. Everything else is just noise.

Can you really blame anyone for saying "just let the guy ride, for chrissake?" This is the most important rider in the world. Justice demands an expedient decision. If that can't be arrived at, it's simply a joke to keep the threat of pulling the result for every race he's done while awaiting a decision.

How is it Contador's problem that a decision can't be arrived at? If he's at last found guilty, is it not reasonable to take the title he won when the infraction was found and leave the rest?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The main problem with all this is that it's been a year. Everything else is just noise.

Can you really blame anyone for saying "just let the guy ride, for chrissake?" This is the most important rider in the world. Justice demands an expedient decision. If that can't be arrived at, it's simply a joke to keep the threat of pulling the result for every race he's done while awaiting a decision.

How is it Contador's problem that a decision can't be arrived at? If he's at last found guilty, is it not reasonable to take the title he won when the infraction was found and leave the rest?

If this had been done in a timely matter and he had been sanctioned (ie TdF'10 taken away and a 1 year ban) then he would not have been riding in any of the events this year.

More importantly - it was the UCI who were the ones to draw this out so long in the first place.
Contador too has requested more time - which as his livelihood is on the line is fair as he is entitled to to prepare a robust case.

 

[Merckx index]

Welcome back, Term, I’ve missed you. Nobody can claim that you have wishy-washy opinions!

Five picograms of clenbuterol isn't performance enhancing, and never was doping. …If WADA lets the soccer players go, they have no leg to stand on with Contador.

Swordsman, you have been on this forum for far too long to pretend that these BS statements of yours result from ignorance or naivete. You know that ANY level of a drug can indicate a prior PE dose—even, in this unusual case, with an earlier negative value. You also know that Bert’s case, where the meat claimed to be contaminated was purchased in Spain, is far different from that of the soccer players, who ate meat in a country that doesn’t inspect it.

I'm not posting dozens of links here, but on my twitter account I've linked to stories that are coming out from professors and Presidents of Livestock organizations. One visited seven slaughterhouses, and 74% of the meat had clenbuterol. Another said that half of the meat consumed in his whole state contains Clenbuterol.

The question is how much CB. Even much of European meat contains some CB, just not nearly enough to trigger a positive. As I mentioned earlier, studies indicate that while most Mexican meat does contain detectable amounts of CB, the amounts in most cases would not result in a very high level in urine. This is probably why more athletes in Mexico have not tested positive.

By the way, many of the news stories on the Mexican athletes are describing CB as a steroid. It is not a steroid.

The Mexicans are being totally transparent about the whole process. Two players had their B tests opened Tuesday, two more will happen today, and one Thursday. The authorities flew them to Los Angeles Friday so there could be additional tests, and those came back negative.

Negative for what? CB? If these are “additional” tests (not B tests) for CB, this just means that the original levels were quite low, and now are perhaps indetectable. That result has no bearing whatsoever on the question of how CB got into their bodies in the first place, except that if the original levels were low, they could be consistent with eating contaminated meat. I’m not sure what other tests would be run in this situation.

WADA isn't messing around with these people, because they won't stand for nonsense.

If people really don’t want to stand for nonsense, they shouldn’t be eating meat in Mexico. No athlete today can possibly say that he is surprised to test positive for CB there, after Bert’s case and all the associated cases that his case brought to light. Athletes who want to use CB for doping can apparently do this without worry now if they compete in Mexico.

It was their delay issuing the positive that kept Contador from gathering the same type of evidence the High Performance Center is.

Which would be…what evidence? They’ve been tested A and B for CB. What other evidence have they accumulated that has bearing on these cases? And how was Bert prevented from obtaining the same kind of evidence?

The only helpful test I can think of is of others who ate the same meat. I don't know if this is being done in this case. But in Bert's case, I don't think anyone knew about the results until more than a week after he gave the samples, which would almost certainly have been too late to test others. Remember, he was tested for two days after the the first positive, and his values were lower, approaching the detection limit. So even if he had eaten contaminated meat, and the same meat was eaten by his teammates, they would be unlikely to have had detectable amounts of CB by the time it could have occurred to anyone to have them tested.

No sporting authority would change the rules so that 100 picos of X is not considered a violation

Would people at least read what is being proposed before commenting? The proposal is not that some higher level of CB is not considered doping, it is that some higher level is not automatically considered doping. It just allows the athlete to have a case. If a hypothetical level of 100 pg/ml were established, it would NOT mean that someone testing at 50 pg/ml like Bert—after the new rule went into effect—would get off. All it would mean was that he could now bring particular facts of his situation—such as, ate meat in Mexico, teammates also tested at same level, hair test—to make his case. If he were over this hypothetical level, none of this would help him.

As I said before, the talked about threshold would have no effect on Bert's case, even if passed and made retroactive today, except perhaps psychologically. It would raise awareness of the contamination problem, and for the apparently large number of people like Swordsman who want to avoid looking hard at evidence and lack of evidence, suggest that Bert should be given an automatic pass. But from a scientific point of view, it would not affect Bert's situation one iota.

Unless you plan on installing tracking chips in every piece of meat, focusing on individual states is going to be difficult.

Not really. All that is necessary is that countries that inspect their own meat also inspect imported meat. Spain does this.

 

[TERMINATOR]

there is nothing to accuse you other than being wrong every time you show up with black and white opinions that you know something because you an insider.

there is plenty of evidence. you chided people in several posts that ovcharov case is definitely appealed by wada, you went into long tutorials why, when the events proved you wrong, you sing different karp. so was with your other, karp like you were clueless that athletes pay for their b-sample test, yet you accused people of your own ignorance. i can recalll other cases too, like ignorance of blood doping techniques, yet, yelling at posters for lack of own knowledge.

discredited pretender, term

Please stop misrepresenting what I say. Second, please use references to any previous statements you claim I made since you are misrepresenting them and I don't think you would do that if you had to show a link.

Your accusations are also incredibly vague. The only one I agree with above is that I do yell at posters for their lack of knowledge. If you think most of the posters in here are knowledgeable, than that just confirms your ignorance. Most posters in here have no idea what they are talking about and have weak command of basic facts to even the most highly publicized cases.

50% of the people in here actually think Contador ate contaminated meat and that there's no evidence that Lance doped. Should I patronize those people? Do you think those people are "knowledgeable?"

 

[Angliru]

I know Contador deserves a ban. But this entire episode smells of whitewash. I've accepted that he will receive no ban, and the international cycling establishment will position themselves to use the Lance Armstrong investigation as a tool to declare doping an "American" problem. Reality is inconsequential to questions of power.

Can you please explain to me how all of this ends up with the int'l cycling establishment declaring doping an "American" problem when it has been evident over the past 20 years+ that it is an international issue?

 

[Paco_P]

Pointing out an inconsistency in a drug testing protocol doesn't make one a Contador fanboy. Just because a few self-righteous folks on here want Contador to be banned doesn't mean he should be without proper proof.

There's very little evidence of clenbuterol contamination in beef raised in Spain in recent years. That there were cases of it more than a decade ago is only relevant insofar as it is being exploited by Contador to make his defense seem plausible. His whole story about the beef from Irun (or wherever the hell it was) so badly fails the most basic taste test for plausibility that it makes him more suspicious. What is another matter is whether under existing regulations he should be banned. It's a bit like OJ - we all know he was guilty - but we also all knew the crooked LAPD was systematically planting evidence (this was later well established and resulted in hundreds of exonerations) - so he got off legally although he was guilty as all hell. Contador's situation seems similar, though of course his malfeasance is not so serious. Another matter is whether he will be banned. I, for one, am convinced that Contador dopes like all the rest of the best, that Contador will be completely exonerated, and that the question of whether someone should be banned for having tested positive for a little bit of clenbuterol has no easy answer. I think there should be some allowance made for the contamination argument, but I think there needs to be some serious scientific evidence that the sorts of levels being detected in athletes can be produced in such a way (and in the relevant time frames). Moreover, it seems that the most reasonable thing is that the default supposition ought to be that a positive test for clenbuterol in a professional athlete is indicative of clenbuterol use rather than accidental ingestion.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

If this had been done in a timely matter and he had been sanctioned (ie TdF'10 taken away and a 1 year ban) then he would not have been riding in any of the events this year.

Had what been done in a timely manner? Justice served? Case closed?

Just because he's offered a deal for purposes of expedience that doesn't mean he's dragging it out by refusing it. I'm not sure what would have been "done in a timely manner."

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Please stop misrepresenting what I say. Second, please use references to any previous statements you claim I made since you are misrepresenting them and I don't think you would do that if you had to show a link.

Your accusations are also incredibly vague. The only one I agree with above is that I do yell at posters for their lack of knowledge. If you think most of the posters in here are knowledgeable, than that just confirms your ignorance. Most posters in here have no idea what they are talking about and have weak command of basic facts to even the most highly publicized cases.

50% of the people in here actually think Contador ate contaminated meat and that there's no evidence that Lance doped. Should I patronize those people? Do you think those people are "knowledgeable?"

You're like the type A guy in the Cat 3 pack who yells instructions, gets mad when nobody listens to him, attacks and ends up taking the wrong turn.

It's funny to watch.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Had what been done in a timely manner? Justice served? Case closed?

That was quite clear in the post I was responding to.

This case should have been been heard by RFEC before the end of last year - and any subsequent appeal to CAS heard by now.
I have no problem with AC looking to extend however it was the UCI who sat on the positive for 2 months before it became public.

Just because he's offered a deal for purposes of expedience that doesn't mean he's dragging it out by refusing it. I'm not sure what would have been "done in a timely manner."

I have no idea what that means?
AC wasn't offered a 'deal for expedience'.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

That was quite clear in the post I was responding to.

This case should have been been heard by RFEC before the end of last year - and any subsequent appeal to CAS heard by now.
I have no problem with AC looking to extend however it was the UCI who sat on the positive for 2 months before it became public.


I have no idea what that means?
AC wasn't offered a 'deal for expedience'.

I agree with that. Things should have handled more expeditiously.

I thought you were suggesting that Contador would have settled everyting if he had just accepted a 1yr ban and a loss of his TdF title.