• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

What's gonna happen then?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Ban? No ban? ....

  • Full 2 year ban.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Oct 8, 2010
450
0
0
Visit site
python said:
the spanish fed chief said he's probably getting the case early next week.

means wada and the uci put the sanction responsibility on them which is NOT going to be blood transfusion. faced with minimum 1 year or not guilty the spanish fed will go with not guilty.

This is incorrect. The UCI sends all positive cases to the national federation of the rider. Not sure why you think blood transfusions would circumvent that process. Surely you recall Hamilton tested positive for autologous transfusion at the Vuelta and that case was sent to USADA.
 
Oct 8, 2010
450
0
0
Visit site
TERMINATOR said:
This is incorrect. The UCI sends all positive cases to the national federation of the rider. Not sure why you think blood transfusions would circumvent that process. Surely you recall Hamilton tested positive for autologous transfusion at the Vuelta and that case was sent to USADA.

Correction:

autologous=homologous
 
Nov 12, 2009
21
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
I think a very important part of this debate is " will Contador get to keep his 10 TDF title"?

Might as well start a poll on that.

The only thing that makes it even vaguely possible that he keeps the title is that the positive happened on a rest day. If it had happened on the day of a stage, even if it was ruled that he took the stuff without meaning to, he would have to either (a) lose that stage result and be removed from the final GC, or (b) in the case that he merely received a reprimand, he would get a penalty of 1% of his time for the stage added to his stage result, which would be enough for Andy Schleck to win the overall.

But with the positive happening on a rest day, it's not so clear. His expert says the stuff entered his system on the day before the rest day, so they could rule that it might have affected that day's results--or, since there were detectable levels of clen on the day after the rest day, they could rule that it might have affected that day, and still pull the Tour away from him.

That's just taking the clenbuterol into consideration--if they use the plasticizer in considering the ruling, no way he keeps the Tour win.

Source: UCI anti-doping regulations--see Chapter X.
 
Apr 22, 2009
190
0
0
Visit site
mycenos said:
The only thing that makes it even vaguely possible that he keeps the title is that the positive happened on a rest day. If it had happened on the day of a stage, even if it was ruled that he took the stuff without meaning to, he would have to either (a) lose that stage result and be removed from the final GC, or (b) in the case that he merely received a reprimand, he would get a penalty of 1% of his time for the stage added to his stage result, which would be enough for Andy Schleck to win the overall.

But with the positive happening on a rest day, it's not so clear. His expert says the stuff entered his system on the day before the rest day, so they could rule that it might have affected that day's results--or, since there were detectable levels of clen on the day after the rest day, they could rule that it might have affected that day, and still pull the Tour away from him.

That's just taking the clenbuterol into consideration--if they use the plasticizer in considering the ruling, no way he keeps the Tour win.

Source: UCI anti-doping regulations--see Chapter X.

I think if you look more carefully you'll see that the rules are less favorable to AC than the analysis above suggest.

Article 289 provides that if the rider commits a rule violation involving the "Use of a Prohibited Substance" during an event, all of his results from the event are disqualified with the exceptions in Article 290 and 291.

Article 290 isn't applicable because it addresses events like the Track World Championships that contain multiple unrelated competitions.

Article 291 isn't applicable because it addresses a) violations during a specific stage (the AAF was from the rest day) and b) "Use of a Specified Substance" (Clen is a Prohibited Substance as defined by UCI, not a Specific Substance).

Note that these rules don't allow any wiggle room for lack of intent. That's only considered in deciding whether to allow results in the event before the AAF, and what to do for guys popped with Specified Substances.

If UCI follows its own rules, they have to disqualify AC from the GC at the 2010 tour.
 
Nov 12, 2009
21
0
0
Visit site
HoustonHammer said:
Article 291 isn't applicable because it addresses a) violations during a specific stage (the AAF was from the rest day) and b) "Use of a Specified Substance" (Clen is a Prohibited Substance as defined by UCI, not a Specific Substance).

Ah, I missed that clen wasn't a 'specified substance'--thanks for that clarification. But I disagree with your interpretation of 291 being wholly subordinate to 289. 291 says that if a rider didn't mean to dope, only his results that are affected by the inadvertent doping are disqualified (including the overall). But since the positive was on a rest day, Contador can argue that no results were affected, so there's nothing to disqualify. Doesn't make sense that they would be harder on someone whose inadvertent doping didn't affect a stage than on someone whose inadvertent doping did.

But anyway, they'd have to accept no fault or negligence, and being able to consider the plasticiser result as supporting evidence reduces the chances of that.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
Visit site
Based on what they have right now I think it should be a one year ban, just like Colo. If it's anything less than that then they should reduce Colo's ban as well.

If they find more evidence for blood-doping 2 years.

However the most probable would be 3 months starting last August or something stupid like that, so he'll already be back for Paris-Nice. Too bad.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
mycenos said:
Ah, I missed that clen wasn't a 'specified substance'--thanks for that clarification. But I disagree with your interpretation of 291 being wholly subordinate to 289. 291 says that if a rider didn't mean to dope, only his results that are affected by the inadvertent doping are disqualified (including the overall). But since the positive was on a rest day, Contador can argue that no results were affected, so there's nothing to disqualify. Doesn't make sense that they would be harder on someone whose inadvertent doping didn't affect a stage than on someone whose inadvertent doping did.

But anyway, they'd have to accept no fault or negligence, and being able to consider the plasticiser result as supporting evidence reduces the chances of that.

Not quite,

Contadors sample (even on the rest day) is viewed as "in-competition".

Rule 288: A violation of these Anti-Doping Rules in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the individual result obtained in that Competition.
 
Nov 12, 2009
21
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Not quite,

Contadors sample (even on the rest day) is viewed as "in-competition".

Rule 288: A violation of these Anti-Doping Rules in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the individual result obtained in that Competition.

Yes, now keep reading for what happens when the competition is a stage race.

I'd love it if the UCI agreed with you--I just don't think that's what the rules say.
 
Apr 22, 2009
190
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Not quite,

Contadors sample (even on the rest day) is viewed as "in-competition".

Rule 288: A violation of these Anti-Doping Rules in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the individual result obtained in that Competition.


Exactly. The only issue is that in a couple of narrow circumstances, the rider might be able to keep results (including stage wins, etc.) he got in the 'event' before the doping, provided that they weren't affected by the doping. But it doesn't help AC; the rules say he gets a DQ no matter what.

Of course, that's just reading the (pretty poorly written) rules. Like any legal system, there's probably considerable jurisprudence that affects how the rules are interpreted. It's always possible that a loophole exists in that jurisprudence that could save AC's TdF title, although it seems unlikely.
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
Visit site
No ban, slap on the wrist for not knowing the contents of what he's eating yadda yadda.

Spanish Federation will be seen to do the right thing taking advice from the UCI on what to do and then do what it think is appropriate, nothing. I see this happening quite quickly, weeks rather than months (before plasticgate gains momentum).
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
luckyboy said:
No sanction. 18 23.38%
Few months ban (off-season/back by TdF 2011). 20 25.97%
1 year ban. 17 22.08%
Full 2 year ban. 22 28.57%

Heh, thought the poll would've been more decisive than this..

Should I answer according to what I think should or will happen? Those two are not identical.
 
Jan 20, 2010
713
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestones said:
Should I answer according to what I think should or will happen? Those two are not identical.

And you could even add what people want to happen, rather than what should or will.

I would imagine some of the voting at the extreme ends of the scale are based on whether you're a fan or not.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
It is looking like a 1 or 2 year ban per latest comments from the Ghent Lab:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ghent-lab-chief-dismisses-contadors-calls-for-clenbuterol-cut-off

"Contador must prove that his positive test for Clenbuterol was caused by eating contaminated meat but likely can only receive only a 50% reduction in any eventual suspension."

Remember when Vino was Banished for 2 years?
He vowed to never return, GRRRR.

Do not give up hope if Alberto becomes theatrical and quits the sport also.
He'll be back. You know he will. And no, not just for the money.

I just hope the "Alberto Contador Foundation" can survive the bad press ouch.

http://www.albertocontador.com/prensa.detalle.php?id=487
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
If they pursue the plasticizer angle this story could get far more interesting. They of course still have Schleck's 2009 and 2010 Tour samples - what are the chances that those don't contain plasticizers?

If Alberto loses his TdF wins, Schleck stands to gain a lot...or lose even more.
 
eleven said:
If they pursue the plasticizer angle this story could get far more interesting. They of course still have Schleck's 2009 and 2010 Tour samples - what are the chances that those don't contain plasticizers?

If Alberto loses his TdF wins, Schleck stands to gain a lot...or lose even more.

Ouch! Suppose the DEHP test was used to invalidate both Bert and Andy in 2009. Guess who is declared the winner of the 2009 TDF???

(Hint: If he tests positive, too, Novitzky can cut to the chase).
 
Aug 14, 2010
5
0
0
Visit site
If Contador somehow evaids a ban, is ASO likley to try and exclude him from the Tour next year. Especially since he will be managed by Riis who admitted winning the Tour doped:confused:
 
woundedknee said:
Especially since he will be managed by Riis who admitted winning the Tour doped:confused:

This is pretty irrelevant seeing as how Riis has doped his other riders for years without any problem.

And look at how many guys HTC have got on the staff from Telekom. Also Zanini + Gianetti at Footon, Bontempi at Astana, Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano at Euskaltel. Also Bramati at QST...
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
Ouch! Suppose the DEHP test was used to invalidate both Bert and Andy in 2009. Guess who is declared the winner of the 2009 TDF???

(Hint: If he tests positive, too, Novitzky can cut to the chase).

Suppose, yes....

I think we'll be hearing about Andy's plasticizers soon enough. Armstrong? He would have known better.