Will Contador Be Juiced Up Again Upon His Return

[Hugh Januss]

Doped to the eyeballs with absolutely no proof.

One would think someone in the Bruyneel iteration of Astana would have stepped up by now, since they've pretty much have all been disgraced and have nothing further to lose at this point, and said something about Contador.

But all you guys have to go on is a microscopic level of clenbuterol and a childish, undying hatred of the "Pistolero" salute. And as we all know, such levels of clen is a clear sign of all manner of organized doping skullduggery and more transfusions than in a WWII battlefield hospital.

It makes me wonder what this particular lab would have found if they had tested all the samples collected at the Tour.

Contador is doing us a favor by actually providing some good racing. If some of you can't enjoy it, what pleasure is there in relentlessly repeating the same unproven charges? Some of you are more obsessed with this than those loony TV televangelists.

It's really wrong for mods to troll like this.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

The Clen might not indicate blood doping, the plastercizers and the testimony of Mike Ashenden kinda do

Keep in mind Ashenden was not called at the CAS hearing to give an opinion that AC had blood doped. The case against AC was not that he had blood doped, but that he had clen in his blood.

Ashenden was called to testify as to whether or not in his opinion it was possible that AC had infused his own blood. Now Ashenden's opinion was based on very logical evidence, 1. a sharp peak in plasticizer residues as a result of his sample on July 20, 2. the miniscule amount of clen detected in his sample of July 21, and, 3. his reticulocyte levels were abnormally high.

But the issue at CAS was not did AC in fact blood dope. All Ashenden's opinion was used for was to show there was another possibility for the clen than tainted meat or a supplement. Giving an opinion as to the possibility that something happened as opposed to something in fact having happened are two completely different things. Clearly the latter carries more weight in a court than the former.

The issue in the CAS case was how the clen entered AC's blood. AC argued that because there was no other reasonable explanation it must have come from the steak he had eaten or a supplement. He argued that Ashenden's opinion only pointed to another possibility of the source of the clen and not proof as to its presence. Ashenden's evidence was therefore relevant to the possibility of some other source of the clen.

The onus to prove where the clen had come from was on AC. AC's evidence could not establish it had in fact come from tainted meat or a supplement, only that he testified he did not transfuse and the only logical sources were tainted meat or a supplement.

Ashenden's evidence to the effect, that it was possible the clen came from a transfusion, therefore was simply opinion evidence the panel could take into account that the clen came from some other source, but clearly not proof of that fact.

The CAS ruled it was very unlikely that AC had transfused. At the same time they ruled AC had not proved that the clen came from tainted meat. They ruled it was possible it might have come from a supplement, but AC simply could not prove this. Therefore Ashenden's opinion in the end did not matter. In addition it was based on the existence of residues of plasticisers using a test that was not approved.

In the end AC was found guilty on the principle of strict liability - the clen was present, even though it was clear the amount (50 pictograms) could not have had a performance enhancing effect.

So the theory that AC in fact blood doped is sheer speculation on the evidence, even though Ashenden's opinion in the minds of the AC haters is very persuasive, giving rise to all the speculation, which all the AC haters glob onto.

The UCI and WADA had an option. To cite AC with blood doping based on his sample on July 20, 2010. They did not do this because in my opinion they simply could not prove it and they knew it. Part of the problem was the tests used for the residue of plasticisers was not an approved test. Relying in the strict liability rule for the clen was their only option.

 

[Merckx index]

Keep in mind Ashenden was not called at the CAS hearing to give an opinion that AC had blood doped...Ashenden was called to testify as to whether or not in his opinion it was possible that AC had infused his own blood... Giving an opinion as to the possibility that something happened as opposed to something in fact having happened are two completely different things.

Well, no, they’re not. An opinion on the possibility of something happening is very relevant to whether it did happen. If there is no possibility, then it couldn’t have happened. If there is a possibility, then it could have, and the greater the possibility, the greater the likelihood that it did happen. You can’t express an opinion on the possibility of something’s happening without at the same time expressing an opinion on whether it did happen—whether you are asked to, or that was your intention, or not.

Ashenden's evidence to the effect, that it was possible the clen came from a transfusion, therefore was simply opinion evidence the panel could take into account that the clen came from some other source, but clearly not proof of that fact.

Of course it wasn't proof, nobody ever said it was proof. It was evidence, but not simply of the possibility of transfusion, but of whether or not transfusion occurred.

The CAS ruled it was very unlikely that AC had transfused. At the same time they ruled AC had not proved that the clen came from tainted meat. They ruled it was possible it might have come from a supplement, but AC simply could not prove this. Therefore Ashenden's opinion in the end did not matter. In addition it was based on the existence of residues of plasticisers using a test that was not approved...

So the theory that AC in fact blood doped is sheer speculation on the evidence, even though Ashenden's opinion in the minds of the AC haters is very persuasive, giving rise to all the speculation, which all the AC haters glob onto.

What very few observers seemed to pick up is that CAS' decision was not just a little strange. It was flat-out illogical. logically, all the probabilities have to add up to 1.0. If it was very improbable (p < 0.01, it seems) that the meat was contaminated or that he transfused, then you MUST conclude that it was 98% probable that he took a contaminated supplement (either that, or argue some other cause). But the odds of that clearly were nowhere remotely close to 98%. The vast majority of batches of supplements of all kinds that have been tested do not contain CB at detectable levels. Ergo, CAS did not correctly estimate the probabilities of either the meat or transfusion. It is overwhelmingly likely they underestimated the probability of transfusion.

Basically, what CAS did is decide that both the meat and transfusion scenarios were very unlikely, therefore it had to be a supplement. But they just as easily could have concluded that both the meat and the supplement scenarios were very unlikely, therefore it had to be transfusion. There is abundant statistical evidence showing that it is highly improbable that his CB could have resulted from either meat or supplements (which the panel never addressed). There really isn't any evidence of that nature that allows one to conclude that transfusion was unlikely. Much of the "evidence" was based on the premise that the panel could get inside Contador's head and estimate how likely it was he would withdraw blood while taking CB. Any scientist I know will give statistical evidence far more weight than psychological conjecture.

The UCI and WADA had an option. To cite AC with blood doping based on his sample on July 20, 2010. They did not do this because in my opinion they simply could not prove it and they knew it. Part of the problem was the tests used for the residue of plasticisers was not an approved test. Relying in the strict liability rule for the clen was their only option.

But again, notice the inconsistency. They couldn't prove it was a supplement, either. Given three alternatives, none of which could be proven, they chose the one that was least controversial. Big surprise.

To be fair, they didn't conclude it was a supplement, they just said this was the most likely cause. But for that to be true, it would have to be >33% probable, and they never provided any evidence at all to back that up. And meanwhile, hardly anyone noticed that a) Contador insisted he never took a supplement during that Tour;, b) contamination of supplements with CB is quite rare, there is an extensive body of evidence showing how rare it is; and c) if he did take a contaminated supplement that accounted for the level found in his system, it would have passed the "clean" standards that have been applied to supplements by anti-doping organizations.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

For me there's no question whether Contador or Froome use doping. Yes, they do, either it is doping or new methods which can not be called doping due to brand new technologies. It doesn't matter. However, why Contador seems to be a real champion while Froome is not handled like a legitimate champion is a puzzle. Sometimes I observe people loves to operate with definition of 'talent'. It looks like talent itself allows Contador to be a legitimate doper, but it doesn't work for Froome as many people think. It is a hypocritical stance through and through and the sceptic is the brightest example of that. Tbh, I've read most of the thread and still I'm shocked how people prefer to sink in their personal sympathies.

Many people absolutely sincerely suppose that Froome doesn't kind of deserve to be on Contador's level or better because it doesn't match cycling they want to see. The general idea is about that. Talent is just an option to try to justify this on a rational basis.

In short, I prefer to enjoy races because both of them are great champions. But what people say about Froome here is shocking. Dividing riders on legitimate winners and lucky rookies is a road to nowhere.

Perfect summary... you have seen well trou the minds of the "top stars" in the clinic.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Why do you think Dan Martin gets battered in week 3.

He doesn´t...
1 Juan Jose Cobo Acebo (Spa) Geox-TMC 84:59:31
2 Christopher Froome (GBr) Sky Procycling 0:00:13
3 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling 0:01:39
4 Bauke Mollema (Ned) Rabobank Cycling Team 0:02:03
5 Denis Menchov (Rus) Geox-TMC 0:03:48
6 Maxime Monfort (Bel) Leopard Trek 0:04:13
7 Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas-Cannondale 0:04:31
8 Jurgen Van Den Broeck (Bel) Omega Pharma-Lotto 0:04:45
9 Daniel Moreno Fernandez (Spa) Katusha Team 0:05:20
10 Mikel Nieve Ituralde (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 0:05:33
11 Jakob Fuglsang (Den) Leopard Trek 0:05:50
12 Chris Anker Sörensen (Den) Saxo Bank Sungard 0:07:04
13 Daniel Martin (Irl) Team Garmin-Cervelo 0:07:22

It´s a matter of moral. If 18 guys battle it out over 49 mountains in a very hard, but close Vuelta, and Martin is still having a chance to T-10, he loses only 7 mins.
OTOH, if riders see they have no chance to improve, they let it go, like losing 25 mins on one late single stage alone. Even happened to Evans in TdF.
It´s like in soccer for example, when you know you lost, you give up. If you lose 0-3 or 0-7 doesn´t matter then...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Well, no, they’re not. An opinion on the possibility of something happening is very relevant to whether it did happen. If there is no possibility, then it couldn’t have happened. If there is a possibility, then it could have, and the greater the possibility, the greater the likelihood that it did happen. You can’t express an opinion on the possibility of something’s happening without at the same time expressing an opinion on whether it did happen—whether you are asked to, or that was your intention, or not. ...

Of course it wasn't proof, but saying it wasn't proof isn't saying it wasn't evidence.

Ashenden's opinion that it was a possibility AC had blood doped, opens the door, but there is a huge qualitative difference between an opinion about a possibility and a probability and arbitrations have to determine what weight to give these opinions. "In my opinion I think it is possible AC transfused versus, in my opinion AC transfused"

I didn't say Ashenden's opinion wasn't evidence. I said, "Ashenden's evidence to the effect ... was simply opinion evidence..."

Opinion evidence is treated differently in an arbitration/court. The opinion could be wrong. In the end it was not that Ashenden's opinion wasn't evidence its just wasn't evidence relevant to AC's inability to prove the clen came from meat or a supplement.

You correctly point out AC testified he did not take a supplement so his evidence on that point ruled out that the clen possibly came from a supplement argument. This "possibility" was just not acceptable as proof to the level required.

The fact the CAS said it was possible clen could come from a supplement
(pretty bizarre finding!) has been used disingenuously by AC in his public relations to suggest he did not knowingly take the clen.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Berzin at it again.

 

[Big Doopie]

Really, all we have is the "microscopic" amounts of clen (that shouldn't have been there in the first place) and the gunman salute? So Saiz, Puerto, Discovery, Bruyneel, his sprints with Rasmussen, the plasticizers, Pepe Martí, his blatant lies, all of that never happened.

K.

And puerto.

But bingo on the laundry list. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in clentadoppucci's entire career that doesn't scream MASSIVE HABITUAL DOPER. And yet still people go on and on that at least he's legitimate because he has "talent". How could anyone possibly know from looking at that career laundry list of doping.

One of the incredible injustices of doping is that a victorious doped rider lives off the reputation of all the doped victories for the rest of his career.

Even Armstrong has ratted on pepe and pepe was clentadoppucci's personal dope doctor. And we know what dope can do, it can turn a guy being dropped by third level pros in the hills of the tour of Gila to dominating the tour only 6 weeks later.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

And puerto. But bingo on the laundry list. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in clentadoppucci's entire career that doesn't scream MASSIVE HABITUAL DOPER. And yet still people go on and on that at least he's legitimate because he has "talent". How could anyone possibly know from looking at that career laundry list of doping.

All sanctimonious speculation. Give us the laundry list and the reasonable and logical arguments that support it as opposed to the usual irrational hater rhetoric, that passes for "commentary" in the Clinic!

Because he wins!!!

 

[Ripper]

All sanctimonious speculation. Give us the laundry list and the reasonable and logical arguments that support it as opposed to the usual irrational hater rhetoric, that passes for "commentary" in the Clinic!

Because he wins!!!

Actually, it's a pretty strong laundry list of connected activities for Bertie. And Pepe's outing by Pharmstrong simply adds to the list. I'm not some hater here ... not like I think Bertie needs to be fed to the wolves or anything. Just that the number of connections to doping is more than moderately strong. Of course, it's only my opinion and some people are not going to be convinced.

Such is life.

 

[EnacheV]

Doped to the eyeballs with absolutely no proof.

One would think someone in the Bruyneel iteration of Astana would have stepped up by now, since they've pretty much have all been disgraced and have nothing further to lose at this point, and said something about Contador.

But all you guys have to go on is a microscopic level of clenbuterol and a childish, undying hatred of the "Pistolero" salute. And as we all know, such levels of clen is a clear sign of all manner of organized doping skullduggery and more transfusions than in a WWII battlefield hospital.

It makes me wonder what this particular lab would have found if they had tested all the samples collected at the Tour.

Contador is doing us a favor by actually providing some good racing. If some of you can't enjoy it, what pleasure is there in relentlessly repeating the same unproven charges? Some of you are more obsessed with this than those loony TV televangelists.

i guess its futile to report this for trolling?

beating Lance in a Lance team + Already convicted + mediocre 2013 flying 2014 + Riis + Tinkoff is enough to be 20000000% a doper

not to talk about the Sayar style, but it's called "dancing" if its Condator rofl

 

[LaFlorecita]

i guess its futile to report this for trolling?

beating Lance in a Lance team + Already convicted + mediocre 2013 flying 2014 + Riis + Tinkoff is enough to be 20000000% a doper

not to talk about the Sayar style, but it's called "dancing" if its Condator rofl

Sayar style? Jeepers dude.

 

[Nathan12]

i guess its futile to report this for trolling?

beating Lance in a Lance team + Already convicted + mediocre 2013 flying 2014 + Riis + Tinkoff is enough to be 20000000% a doper

not to talk about the Sayar style, but it's called "dancing" if its Condator rofl

Finishing 11 seconds behind Lance in one of the most doped races in history + mediocre 2010 + Leinders + Sutton + flying 2011 and superhuman 2012 is enough, also, to be suspected as a doper. I don't see how you can defend Wiggins and Froome whilst at the same time convicting Contador. Either they're all dirty, or they're all clean. Anything else is sheer hypocrisy.

 

[EnacheV]

Finishing 11 seconds behind Lance in one of the most doped races in history + mediocre 2010 + Leinders + Sutton + flying 2011 and superhuman 2012 is enough, also, to be suspected as a doper. I don't see how you can defend Wiggins and Froome whilst at the same time convicting Contador. Either they're all dirty, or they're all clean. Anything else is sheer hypocrisy.

sorry but its to much waste of my valuable time to try to show you again how you say 1+1=3

 

[Nathan12]

sorry but its to much waste of my valuable time to try to show you again how you say 1+1=3

Which is exactly what you're doing, only worse because you've already convicted Contador. I suspect Contador, and I suspect Sky. To suspect one and not the other is just illogical.

 

[BradCantona]

But all you guys have to go on is a microscopic level of clenbuterol and a childish, undying hatred of the "Pistolero" salute. And as we all know, such levels of clen is a clear sign of all manner of organized doping skullduggery and more transfusions than in a WWII battlefield hospital.

I'm staggered how naive this comment is, bearing in mind we know how ineffective testing is because the doper has the upper hand (Lance's favourite soundbite, never tested positive), and that the presence alone of clen is damning. Saying the level isn't performance enhancing misses the point, it was evidently in his system in a greater presence at an earlier stage

I think he's embarrasing for the sport, because his lack of consistency and the way he rides is as blatant as it gets. Probably why they used the high tech lab to find the trace amounts, someone had had enough

 

[hrotha]

The CAS ruled it was very unlikely that AC had transfused.

No, the CAS ruled that it was very unlikely that a transfusion was the source of the clen. There's a huge difference.

And frankly, even that is hard to believe.

 

[ralphbert]

Huh, I thought almost everyone assumes conti dopes but everyone forgives him because he is just so damn entertaining and gave Armstrong the fingers when he got the chance. Kinda like vino, looks like a fire hydrant but does these ludicrous attacks at the stupidest moments, almost charming in a way. Froomes problem is he climbs like an 80 year old pushing a shopping trolley and looks like an angry spider when he attacks. Cycling should be beautiful.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

I think he's embarrasing for the sport, because his lack of consistency and the way he rides is as blatant as it gets. Probably why they used the high tech lab to find the trace amounts, someone had had enough

David Millar disagrees

 

[RobbieCanuck]

No, the CAS ruled that it was very unlikely that a transfusion was the source of the clen. There's a huge difference.

And frankly, even that is hard to believe.

Yes you are correct. Good point.

 

[Andynonomous]

No, the CAS ruled that it was very unlikely that a transfusion was the source of the clen. There's a huge difference.

And frankly, even that is hard to believe.

It's a legalistic process. Because the test for autologous blood doping wasn't approved, they are not at liberty to conclude that he had an transfusion. Therefore, "officially", he didn't get the clen from a transfusion.

It really DOESN'T mean, that they actually believe that he didn't get the tainted blood from a transfusion. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure that they strongly suspect that he did. They are just not allowed to state it, unless they can "officially" prove it.

 

[Andynonomous]

Pretty disappointing really.

He only had a small amount of clen (not performance enhancing).
Ya, so other guys are doing it.
Since they all do it, it is a level playing field.
I think he is a great rider, and would win clean, if everyone else is clean.
Your all a bunch of hypocrites.
You are all a bunch of moralizers.
The CAS said he wasn't blood doping, so therefore he wasn't.
You can't prove it.


Same BULLSHOT, different day.

 

[Ripper]

sorry but its to much waste of my valuable time to try to show you again how you say 1+1=3

Yes, it is a waste of time to try to show or convince us that 1+1=3.

 

[Ripper]

Pretty disappointing really.

He only had a small amount of clen (not performance enhancing).
Ya, so other guys are doing it.
Since they all do it, it is a level playing field.
I think he is a great rider, and would win clean, if everyone else is clean.
Your all a bunch of hypocrites.
You are all a bunch of moralizers.
The CAS said he wasn't blood doping, so therefore he wasn't.
You can't prove it.


Same BULLSHOT, different day.

Wow, selective listening and interpretation there!

As to the bolded statements, respectively: so what (there is no min), not actually true and has been discussed considerably, and also not actually true and is missing some wording.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Huh, I thought almost everyone assumes conti dopes but everyone forgives him because he is just so damn entertaining and gave Armstrong the fingers when he got the chance. Kinda like vino, looks like a fire hydrant but does these ludicrous attacks at the stupidest moments, almost charming in a way. Froomes problem is he climbs like an 80 year old pushing a shopping trolley and looks like an angry spider when he attacks. Cycling should be beautiful.

Vino only doped once, and that was because he was taken out by an awful fall, wereupon Saxo put minutes into him as the duchebags they were, and people started climbing very fast.