Will Contador Be Juiced Up Again Upon His Return

[Escarabajo]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/oleg-tinkov/contador-is-back-as-the-best-rider-in-the-world

Tinkov just doesnt give a ****.

This was clearly a message to Sky:

To have a zero tolerance policy for the past is just PR and Marketing.

 

[martinvickers]

This was clearly a message to Sky:

He's not wrong, either - still, with Riis and Contador on the team, what else could he say? But his delight with De Jongh is clear enough, isn't it.

 

[Siriuscat]

But do you never wonder why British athletes who have been found out do not get the same treatment that AC receives. Christine Ohuruogu, Dwain Chambers, etc. spring to mind. The last thing I would excuse most British media of is objectivity and impartiality when British athletes are concerned.

The British media go nuts to defend certain people but ionly if they can win gold for GB or bring other glories. The British media HAVE to be associated with glory, look at the way they fawn over Ohorugu but shun Chambers, he had no chance of winning medals of any sort, she did. The BBC blocked me becasue I questioned the integrity of the likes of Steve Cram, even Matt Slater.

Officer Commanding PR at Sky, Mr Walsh blocked my twitter alterego Slapshotjc last year when I asked how much, how much did it take for THE doping crusader to turn to team PR. If Bertie gets his in July Walsh will go nuts as will the whole British media. I have some cynical hope that one of "our" great droppoed a vial of something on Sunday and they get hammered for it, where will clean Sky be then.

Journalism has to be unbiased, otherwise it's just a question of who is paying the expenses bills

 

[Nathan12]

The British media go nuts to defend certain people but ionly if they can win gold for GB or bring other glories. The British media HAVE to be associated with glory, look at the way they fawn over Ohorugu but shun Chambers, he had no chance of winning medals of any sort, she did. The BBC blocked me becasue I questioned the integrity of the likes of Steve Cram, even Matt Slater.

Officer Commanding PR at Sky, Mr Walsh blocked my twitter alterego Slapshotjc last year when I asked how much, how much did it take for THE doping crusader to turn to team PR. If Bertie gets his in July Walsh will go nuts as will the whole British media. I have some cynical hope that one of "our" great droppoed a vial of something on Sunday and they get hammered for it, where will clean Sky be then.

Journalism has to be unbiased, otherwise it's just a question of who is paying the expenses bills

I can't believe that Walsh hasn't considered the potential damage to his reputation if Sky/Froome are found to be dirty. Maybe he thinks Froome's book will do him well and he can get out of the business. A small part of me still believes that he doesn't have faith in everything he's seen and heard- but that his position on a Murdoch paper makes dissension impossible.

 

[gooner]

The British media go nuts to defend certain people but ionly if they can win gold for GB or bring other glories. The British media HAVE to be associated with glory, look at the way they fawn over Ohorugu but shun Chambers, he had no chance of winning medals of any sort, she did. The BBC blocked me becasue I questioned the integrity of the likes of Steve Cram, even Matt Slater.

Officer Commanding PR at Sky, Mr Walsh blocked my twitter alterego Slapshotjc last year when I asked how much, how much did it take for THE doping crusader to turn to team PR. If Bertie gets his in July Walsh will go nuts as will the whole British media. I have some cynical hope that one of "our" great droppoed a vial of something on Sunday and they get hammered for it, where will clean Sky be then.

Journalism has to be unbiased, otherwise it's just a question of who is paying the expenses bills

I don't think you've read Oliver Holt's opinions on Ohuruogu or about his falling out with Rio Ferdinand over his missed test.

lol.

A guy wants a Sky rider to get caught for the vial while at the same time as a Contador fanboy he was happy to celebrate his previous doping victories as well as his current ones.

You can't make this up. Comedy gold.

 

[doperhopper]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/oleg-tinkov/contador-is-back-as-the-best-rider-in-the-world

Tinkov just doesnt give a ****.

sending a message to skyborgs that for 2014 it's his team who purchased the freeride license - and concludes that "Now the pressure is on Team Sky..." (to fake some illnesses or other mishaps in order to cover non-appearances, and as a consolation send the bearded knight to the cobbles to fight windmills)

 

[RobbieCanuck]

A theory for you - let's say that clen in your system at such low levels is not uncommon. But let's also say that the only reason you might be pursued for such low levels of clen is if there are other issues present. No use chasing after everything under the sun, but if there is something there with zero tolerance, then it becomes the singular focus.

Yeah, I agree. That is exactly what the case boiled down to at the CAS. AC had clen in his sample and could not explain to the degree of proof required as to how it got there. End of story.

If I had been AC's lawyer however I would have asked the CAS during the Sanction phase, how they could suspend him even though clen was on the banned list if there was no performance enhancing effect? Keep in mind that all the samples taken from AC before July 21, 2014 during the TDF showed no presence of clen. Other samples of AC after July 21, 2010 showed small amounts of clen from 1 to about 20 picograms. So it appears the clen entered his system on or about July 20-21, 2010. Even though he couldn't prove it - tainted meat? or residues of clen from a transfusion on or about July 20-21?

 

[Ripper]

Yeah, I agree. That is exactly what the case boiled down to at the CAS. AC had clen in his sample and could not explain to the degree of proof required as to how it got there. End of story.

If I had been AC's lawyer however I would have asked the CAS during the Sanction phase, how they could suspend him even though clen was on the banned list if there was no performance enhancing effect? Keep in mind that all the samples taken from AC before July 21, 2014 during the TDF showed no presence of clen. Other samples of AC after July 21, 2010 showed small amounts of clen from 1 to about 20 picograms. So it appears the clen entered his system on or about July 20-21, 2010. Even though he couldn't prove it - tainted meat? or residues of clen from a transfusion on or about July 20-21?

His lawyer may and indeed likely did postulate this. The reply would have been - it doesn't matter, we don't need to explain how it got there and there is no minimum. That's why they banned him for it - it was a highly defensible ban. To go on about other issues would have been murky and likely unwinnable.

 

[Merckx index]

If I had been AC's lawyer however I would have asked the CAS during the Sanction phase, how they could suspend him even though clen was on the banned list if there was no performance enhancing effect?

As Ripper points out, that argument would probably not work. But there was a better one, based not on the lack of PE effect, but on the standards of supplement contamination. After the CAS decision, I emailed Contador’s lawyer, pointing out that if it had been a contaminated supplement, the low level of CB indicated that the supplement would have passed standards generally considered clean by anti-doping organizations. IOW, Contador would have been no more at fault than if he had eaten meat with a level of CB low enough to pass the Euro meat inspection standards.

But Contador was hurt by the fact that he denied taking a supplement from the get-go. (I think it was you who pointed out the hypocrisy of then using the CAS decision to argue that he was not being suspended for intentionally doping). Though I believe he transfused, had he gone with the supplement story from the outset, he would have likely got one year at worst, and I think a good lawyer aware of the studies on supplement contamination could have gotten him off completely.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/oleg-tinkov/contador-is-back-as-the-best-rider-in-the-world

Tinkov just doesnt give a ****.

Ha, gotta love him. That whole "zero tolerance" paragraph is comedic gold. It will be interesting to see how Sky / Froome will respond, as I think it's an even playing field as to what they can get away with it.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

As Ripper points out, that argument would probably not work. But there was a better one, based not on the lack of PE effect, but on the standards of supplement contamination. After the CAS decision, I emailed Contador’s lawyer, pointing out that if it had been a contaminated supplement, the low level of CB indicated that the supplement would have passed standards generally considered clean by anti-doping organizations. IOW, Contador would have been no more at fault than if he had eaten meat with a level of CB low enough to pass the Euro meat inspection standards.

But Contador was hurt by the fact that he denied taking a supplement from the get-go. (I think it was you who pointed out the hypocrisy of then using the CAS decision to argue that he was not being suspended for intentionally doping). Though I believe he transfused, had he gone with the supplement story from the outset, he would have likely got one year at worst, and I think a good lawyer aware of the studies on supplement contamination could have gotten him off completely.

I think I follow you, but I just want to be clear.

If AC had taken a supplement with clen and that was the proven source of the clen (because the onus would be on AC to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the clen came from the supplement), then regardless of the studies, he would still be guilty of a violation because of strict liability.

And then at the sanction hearing he argues Rule 295 and relies on the studies to show the supplement had to pass standards to get on the market and therefore when he buys and uses the supplement he had a reasonable expectation the supplement would not be contaminated, because it passed standards.

He then asks for a reprimand and no period of ineligibility and in that context his lawyer "could have gotten him off completely" Certainly a great argument.


In the back of my mind I have always wondered if his lawyer chose to advise AC to admit he had not taken a supplement to bolster his credibility before the CAS, because it would have really sounded contrived if he came up with the supplement excuse, after AC had already told the UCI that it had come from tainted meat (before his lawyer got to him to tell him to keep his mouth shut about the source of the clen)

 

[Ripper]

As Ripper points out, that argument would probably not work. But there was a better one, based not on the lack of PE effect, but on the standards of supplement contamination. After the CAS decision, I emailed Contador’s lawyer, pointing out that if it had been a contaminated supplement, the low level of CB indicated that the supplement would have passed standards generally considered clean by anti-doping organizations. IOW, Contador would have been no more at fault than if he had eaten meat with a level of CB low enough to pass the Euro meat inspection standards.

But Contador was hurt by the fact that he denied taking a supplement from the get-go. (I think it was you who pointed out the hypocrisy of then using the CAS decision to argue that he was not being suspended for intentionally doping). Though I believe he transfused, had he gone with the supplement story from the outset, he would have likely got one year at worst, and I think a good lawyer aware of the studies on supplement contamination could have gotten him off completely.

While there may have been initial denials, as the case moved forward, if my memory serves correctly, supplements were brought up as part of the defense and it was noted that he takes numerous supplements. I highly doubt that approach would have made a difference (and it may have also been tried).

 

[the sceptic]

Ha, gotta love him. That whole "zero tolerance" paragraph is comedic gold. It will be interesting to see how Sky / Froome will respond, as I think it's an even playing field as to what they can get away with it.

It appears Cookson has given Tinkov the green light. Full *** ahead!

It makes sense. The britsh muppets mostly cared about Wiggo and the olympics, so a rivalry between Contador and Froome is better for buisness than sky domination.

 

[Benotti69]

It appears Cookson has given Tinkov the green light. Full *** ahead!

It makes sense. The britsh muppets mostly cared about Wiggo and the olympics, so a rivalry between Contador and Froome is better for buisness than sky domination.

Cookson would never have got elected if he was an 'honest broker'.

 

[podunavac]

So, is there a chance that ASO won't respect the silent agreement between the teams and UCI?
What do you all think?

 

[Benotti69]

So, is there a chance that ASO won't respect the silent agreement between the teams and UCI?
What do you all think?

What 'silent agreement' is that?

I know RCS announced that their RCS doctor would not report doping if he came across it.

 

[podunavac]

What 'silent agreement' is that?

I know RCS announced that their RCS doctor would not report doping if he came across it.

The silent agreement we're implying to when saying that "Cookson would never have got elected if he was an 'honest broker'" and when we're commenting Tinkov's impressions about managing bodies.

The remark about RCS' stance is exactly what's on my mind when I wonder about ASO's attitude.
ASO has already shown they're not afraid to oppose to the omerta.
Especially if they need publicity in the World Cup year.

 

[Benotti69]

The silent agreement we're implying to when saying that "Cookson would never have got elected if he was an 'honest broker'" and when we're commenting Tinkov's impressions about managing bodies.

The remark about RCS' stance is exactly what's on my mind when I wonder about ASO's attitude.
ASO has already shown they're not afraid to oppose to the omerta.
Especially if they need publicity in the World Cup year.

ASO dont give a fig about fairness in the sport. If they did they would've orchestrated the removal of Hein long ago and not tolerated Armstrong.

When ASO had someone who was anti-Armstrong ASO sacked him.

Silent agreements exist, look at Sky making a presentation to ASO prior to Wiggins winning.

 

[podunavac]

ASO dont give a fig about fairness in the sport. If they did they would've orchestrated the removal of Hein long ago and not tolerated Armstrong.

When ASO had someone who was anti-Armstrong ASO sacked him.

Silent agreements exist, look at Sky making a presentation to ASO prior to Wiggins winning.

Off course they exist. And there's the truth in ASO's treatment of Armstrong, too.
My hope is built around the possibility that ASO will find bigger profit in "honesty" than in rivalry this year. 'Cause it all comes down to business and money, doesn't it?
It, also, depends on the potential damage in prospect. In the 1998. they've hit the prominent protagonists, but those for the future stayed intact. The 2006. was slightly different, but the blow was also directed to those whose prime has already passed.
There are certain similarities between the past and presence.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Off course they exist. And there's the truth in ASO's treatment of Armstrong, too.
My hope is built around the possibility that ASO will find bigger profit in "honesty" than in rivalry this year. 'Cause it all comes down to business and money.
It, also, depends on the potential damage in prospect. In the 1998. they've hit the prominent protagonists, but those for the future stayed intact. The 2006. was slightly different, but the blow was also directed to those whose prime has already passed.
There are certain similarities between the past and presence.

 

[Benotti69]

Off course they exist. And there's the truth in ASO's treatment of Armstrong, too.

Yep, Armstrong had a good deal going with ASO/UCI

My hope is built around the possibility that ASO will find bigger profit in "honesty" than in rivalry this year. 'Cause it all comes down to business and money, doesn't it?

As far as i can see doping has never damaged ASO. So plus ca change will be the modus operandi.

Maybe ASO facilitated Sky wins as Sky were marketing themselves as the 'clean' team, but so did Garmin and they only got a paris roubaix

It, also, depends on the potential damage in prospect. In the 1998. they've hit the prominent protagonists, but those for the future stayed intact. The 2006. was slightly different, but the blow was also directed to those whose prime has already passed.

ASO did nowt to curtail doping. It was the French police who had the most effect.

There are certain similarities between the past and presence.

Yes and ASO has again done little to make any statement about those caught doping will face any sanctions in relation to invites to the race.

ASO has no problem with doping scandals, all and any publicity.....

 

[podunavac]

Yep, Armstrong had a good deal going with ASO/UCI
As far as i can see doping has never damaged ASO. So plus ca change will be the modus operandi.
Maybe ASO facilitated Sky wins as Sky were marketing themselves as the 'clean' team, but so did Garmin and they only got a paris roubaix
ASO did nowt to curtail doping. It was the French police who had the most effect.
Yes and ASO has again done little to make any statement about those caught doping will face any sanctions in relation to invites to the race.
ASO has no problem with doping scandals, all and any publicity.....

No disagreement here, and the bold lines are hitting my point - how will ASO manipulate the topic in the coming years.
It's rather rhetorical question.

 

[Benotti69]

No disagreement here, and the bold lines are hitting my point - how will ASO manipulate the topic in the coming years.
It's rather rhetorical question.

Same way they did in '99 when confronted with Armstrong, the 1999 Tour was billed by ASO as the 'Tour of Redemption'.

ASO will sell it whatever way it sees fit.

 

[podunavac]

Same way they did in '99 when confronted with Armstrong, the 1999 Tour was billed by ASO as the 'Tour of Redemption'.

ASO will sell it whatever way it sees fit.

Exactly.
They manipulate the topic by need. It's just a marketing instrument.
Maybe the next time World Cup comes to Europe and knocks down the Tour's TV share we'll see a new sequel of the soap opera.

 

[Siriuscat]

I don't think you've read Oliver Holt's opinions on Ohuruogu or about his falling out with Rio Ferdinand over his missed test.

lol.

A guy wants a Sky rider to get caught for the vial while at the same time as a Contador fanboy he was happy to celebrate his previous doping victories as well as his current ones.

You can't make this up. Comedy gold.

Not a tabloid reader, terribly sorry, admit i've never heard of the chap.

For every one British journalist shouting against her, there are 50 shouting her praises, she's a "darling" of British sport and Rio Ferdinand is still a hero despite what one journalist in a second rate rag has to say..... still, I have bookmarked his name so will look at what he says.

In 1998 I watched the Festina affair open the deepest wounds of cycling the following year I watched our American friend openly take the p*** on the way to Sestriere and Hautacam. I now unfortunately watch Sky with the same sensations I watched USPDiscotana hoping against hope that it's real....I'm not convinced by any of it.

Yes I'm aware of the foibles of cycling and yes I'm aware Alberto got caught with something in his system, he's done his time, now he's back. I accepted the dark side of the sport many many years ago but it doesn't stop me watching it and following the riders who appeal to me. I hope there's nothing in this vial thing but where there's smoke there's fire, it might kick this zero tolerance BS thats being spouted once and for all.

Hypocrisy nah my perspective on the sport I love...comedy gold...well if that's what makes you happy old boy, you carry on believing it..