RobbieCanuck said:
1. Problem #1 - the suggestion "Just because the amount detected is not at a PE level does not mean that it might not have been at this level at the time it was actually consumed." There is not a fair judicial process in the world that would accept the contention that the clen found in AC, "might not have been at this level at the time it was actually consumed." "might not have" is a spurious basis on which to base a conviction for doping. The very language is inherent with unreliability and ambiguity.
Except that this is the WADA rule, which every rider agrees to. I understand that as a lawyer, you are frustrated by the different standards between Western legal systems and the WADA code. This was at the heart of Armstrong's arguments against WADA, specifically, the concept of due process. But these differences are based on the fact that everyone who is a citizen of a country has to submit to that country's legal code, whereas athletes make the choice to join a profession and accept that profession's code. If they don't like it, they can choose not to join that profession, or they can join and through a union fight anti-doping regulations, as most pro sports in the U.S. have done.
There was absolutely no evidence in AC's case, other than his statement he probably consumed tainted meat ( I know) as to the amount of clen AC had at a prior period in time. Nada. This is the kind of incorrect inference you are making that I referred to.
I didn't make an incorrect inference. I said that because it was possible, WADA treats all levels as the same.
3. In Armstrong's 1999 EPO samples there was no issue about the validity of the test.
Are you serious? Did you read the Vrijman report? There was tremendous controversy. Not among those of us in the Clinic, to be sure, but among the people who mattered, yes. Not over the validity of the test in general, but certainly over the validity of the results on stored frozen samples.
In Contador's case there is. When the UCI learned of the 1999 results they did nothing to investigate. In AC's case they initiated an appeal to the CAS in conjunction with WADA, but the DEHP test results were not introduced as evidence so it was a non-issue. Keep in mind plasticizers get into the blood from a ton of other sources i.e. water bottles.
The DEHP test was circumstantial because the results could not link it to a blood bag as opposed to another source of plasticizer. So it is hardly prima facie evidence as proof of the truth of the matter. Everyone in the Clinic simply assumes it was from a blood bag because that is the cognitive bias that 99% of the Clinicians bring to the table.
Dozens of studies, some of which I discussed here at the time, show that levels of DEHP reported for Contador were many times higher than what the population at large exhibits from water bottles and many other sources. Not even close. There was a study published, widely discussed here in the Clinic at the time, that compared the levels of DEHP following transfusion with those in non-transfused subjects, which was used to justify a test.
You're correct of course that the test was never approved and could not be used as a standalone indicator of doping. But WADA's head said it could be used as supplementary evidence. Not because it was circumstantial but because it hadn't been officially approved. Again, the comparison with the EPO samples is salient. Regardless of how reliable the EPO test was, those samples were always going to be disallowed because there were no A samples, and because there was no rule in effect at the time allowing sanction based on testing of stored samples.
Your example of the drug stash makes sense but you come from a US perspective. In the UK and the Commonwealth countries the fact a police officer was illegally in a premise does not (sorry for this) ipso facto , make it inadmissible. It may but it is not a slam dunk as in the US.
Irrelevant. That I may not have picked the best example does not mean that the principle doesn't hold. Another example in the U.S. is provided by reading someone his Miranda rights. If you don't do that, any incriminating statements made may be disallowed. The point is that the most slam dunk evidence can be thrown out on a technicality.
Or how about the SCA case (which you have commented on here, and again, I appreciate your comments on it)? No question that Armstrong doped, he confessed on national TV. But is it certain that SCA will get all their money back? Well, we'll see, but the point is, we can distinguish between the strength of the evidence (nothing stronger than a confession) and the probability of getting off on a technicality (Armstrong arguing that the agreement between SCA and him can't be revisited). If Armstrong manages to get off without paying everything back, it won't be a reflection of the weakness of the evidence against him, but of a legal situation that disallowed or in effect discounted the use of that evidence.
4. Explain why in the Clinic there is a thread "Can any riders based in Spain be clean" if there is not a huge cultural bias in the Clinic towards Spaniards. I have yet to hear other reasons why people think AC doped.
Based in Spain does not mean Spaniard. Yes, the authorities there are lax. But it doesn't reflect on Spanish nationals specifically, but on anyone who trains there. And again, that is the least of the argument vs. Bert.
What are the other, more important reasons?
1) multiple associations with dodgy doctors and/or teams (some Spanish, but again, a rider from any country associating with these individuals or teams is regarded as just as suspicious)
2) his times on some climbs
3) his Puerto connections, which go beyond what is in 1) (again, while this happened in Spain, it affected many non-Spanish riders; it's not a matter of nationality but of association)
There are probably other reasons that others here could point out.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram