[wildeone]

original article: http://www.bicicicli...ha.asp?id=41468

google translate: http://translate.goo...sp%3Fid%3D41468

wtf?

[micomico]

wildeone, on 26 July 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

original article: http://www.bicicicli...ha.asp?id=41468

google translate: http://translate.goo...sp%3Fid%3D41468

wtf?

WADA requested this extension, ostensibly to handle answers to scientific inquiries. What seems, on the surface, a simple issue of meeting the threshold of evidence that he ate tainted beef is apparently anything but.

[Strategy]

micomico, on 26 July 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

WADA requested this extension, ostensibly to handle answers to scientific inquiries. What seems, on the surface, a simple issue of meeting the threshold of evidence that he ate tainted beef is apparently anything but.

I think that was apparent already with the time it took the Spanish Federation to reach a decision + their decision to acquit him. I don't believe they would have spent so much time or chosen to acquit him, if they believed that CAS would easily overturn their verdict.

[N.B.O.L.]

Is WADA hoping to get some new test approved by then, are are they pretty sure they have a loser and looking for a graceful way out of this?

[micomico]

Strategy, on 26 July 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

I think that was apparent already with the time it took the Spanish Federation to reach a decision + their decision to acquit him. I don't believe they would have spent so much time or chosen to acquit him, if they believed that CAS would easily overturn their verdict.

Not so sure about that.

There is a history of national orgs ruling favorably for an athlete, then having it reversed. Not all the time, but enough to wonder.

The spanish federation received public pressure from their prime minister, who has clout, and we know that the political climate there regarding athletes doping has been, well, less than stringent.

I recall the UCIs outcry at the verdict, WADAs immediate involvement by providing the spanish federation with a report on contamination, a UCI's spokesman giving his opinion on this issue.

Perhaps the delay from the federation was just for the opposite reason, don't know.

However, there is a lot at stake here, pardon the pun. Not just a tainted beef issue. Many riders have been caught with Clen, and some for the same amounts as AC (the myth that the Cologne lab is the only one to be able to detect these levels continues in the press), and a number of those caught with Clen have later admitted guilt, acording to the lab director in Montreal.

But the larger issue may be the No Threshold policy for a number of products, not just clen; and that is big indeed.

It could rock the foundations of dope testing parameters.

Additionally, WADA more than the UCI must be aware of the possibility that AC, if he is as aggresive in litigation as he is on his bike, will take this to Brussels if he loses. He has the money to do so. So WADA may be preparing itself on two fronts.

As an uninformed layman, although at first blush, and second blush, it seems this is a pretty open-and-shut case, the particulars may show otherwise.

-would have loved to see ACs camp show us evidence of clen contamination in the area; hair analysis would have been a simple way. So far we have heard nothing from his end that leads me to wonder otherwise.

This post has been edited by micomico: 26 July 2011 - 10:27 PM

[Strategy]

micomico, on 26 July 2011 - 10:26 PM, said:

There is a history of national orgs ruling favorably for an athlete, then having it reversed. Not all the time, but enough to wonder.

Which is why the Spanish Federation desperately did not want to make a ruling on this case. They openly asked the UCI for help, but the UCI decided to not get involved. They even commented before the verdict that they had no worried about political pressure.

At least one independent expert commented that the verdict was quite reasonable; and I'd tend to agree with that assessment given the arguments that have been put forward. That is not to say that I necessarily believe the story, but that the defense is a reasonable one. The question then (from my point of view) becomes one of whether to apply strict accountability or not. Given that strict accountability has not applied in other cases of clenbuterol tests, acquittal seems reasonable enough, IMO.

That WADA and the UCI does not have their house in order is really their own fault - and has created this farce of a trial. They had their chance to set a precedent half a year ago, but totally blew that opportunity.

[micomico]

Strategy, on 27 July 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:

W Given that strict accountability has not applied in other cases of clenbuterol tests, acquittal seems reasonable enough, IMO.

If, as you suggest, AC should be acquitted because other cases of clen have not resulted in the application of strict accountability (and I will assume that when you said that, you did not mean all cases where clen was positive, since that is not the case), would you also argue, in the name of consistency, that every clen case should be dismissed where strict liability was applied, and riders got suspended?

Following this logic, should athletes in all sports, (this transcends cycling) who were punished for clen in years past and did not admit to use (let's keep in mind that some of them did admit to using it, even when low levels were detected) then have their records expunged?

On the issue of the Spanish Fed ruling, a few months ago you and I differed in viewpoint when you thought that the UCI would not take the case on.

I thought strongly that they would very likely would, and WADA would be involved, in part because this fed was under a lot of pressure, and the mindset in Spain toward doping (not a coincidence that Girona became the 2nd home to a number of dopers) is not exactly that of the Swiss, German or French federation at work.

Their saying that they were not worried about political pressure is bs, after all, they had a hot potato in their hands and didn't want to touch the dynamite, asking the UCI to step in. So much for not feeling pressure.

The opinion of one person should not carry the stamp of authority, especially as you may remember his opinion was contradicted quickly by others. You mentioned that your review of the case suggested it was reasonable for AC to get acquitted.

Can you share some of the information that drove your opinion in this direction?

You may have info that I don't that would cause me to change my mind. You are very well informed, and I may have missed stuff.

This post has been edited by micomico: 28 July 2011 - 04:31 PM

[micomico]

In a simiar vein to AC's case (if I were a rider and doped, sunny Spain would be my preferred nationality) the Spanish Anti doping agency has sided with Mosquera and refused the request of the UCI to open discliplinary proceedings against Mosquera (masking agent, hydroxyethyl).

They agreed with the rider that the masking agent may have been accidentally ingested with food. They went as far as asking if it improves performance (that is obviously not the point), and said that no doping substance was found that the hydroxyethyl would have masked for (disingenous, that is what masking agents are for).

The information came out in an article on Velonation, which states that the Spanish Anti doping agency's argument is misleading.

Hydroxyethyl is banned only if injected. Mosquera claims he does not know how it got into his body. His teammate, Garcia, also tested positive in that race for the masking agent and later EPO traces were found.

It is expected that the Spanish Fed would go along with this finding, meaning that once again the UCI/WADA will need to decide whether to take it to the CAS, similar to AC.

Basically, you test positive for a masking agent during the a GT, cannot account for how it got into your body, and your government's tax euros are at work, backing you.

If you are a Spanish rider and doping, it seems Spain has got your back, and needle. But upon reflection, I can see where this becomes an issue for the anti doping agency.

This particular masking agent is not banned if not taken intravenously; in cases such as this, is burden of proof on the rider (like EPO or clen)? Since it is allowed in the body in certain (non-injected) circumstances, who carries burden? It would seem to me to be the rider, since the UCI has asked the feds to open disciplinary proceedings.

If so, he will likely find himself at the sharp end of the UCI's sword if the spanish fed decision acquits him.

This post has been edited by micomico: 29 July 2011 - 03:57 AM

[Strategy]

micomico, on 27 July 2011 - 10:42 PM, said:

If, as you suggest, AC should be acquitted because other cases of clen have not resulted in the application of strict accountability (and I will assume that when you said that, you did not mean all cases where clen was positive, since that is not the case), would you also argue, in the name of consistency, that every clen case should be dismissed where strict liability was applied, and riders got suspended?

Of course. Each case is different and there may be good reasons to suspect otherwise (e.g., plasticizers in the blood - if they in fact have been found), but naturally athletes should receive the same treatment whether their name is Li Fuyu or Alberto Contador.

Quote

Following this logic, should athletes in all sports, (this transcends cycling) who were punished for clen in years past and did not admit to use (let's keep in mind that some of them did admit to using it, even when low levels were detected) then have their records expunged?

Sad for them, if they were in fact innocent, but retroactive rulings are not normal.

Quote

The opinion of one person should not carry the stamp of authority, especially as you may remember his opinion was contradicted quickly by others. You mentioned that your review of the case suggested it was reasonable for AC to get acquitted.

Hmm - not sure what person it is you think whose opinions carry the stamp of authority? Contador's case with the Spanish Federation was judged by a panel. For the rest of the question, I think we went through it pretty thoroughly during the back and forth after his acquittal. My opinion hasn't significantly changed since then. I think your points are well put, but I also think AC has a fairly strong case (although it does not convince me he is innocent). Whether the case is strong enough will be up to CAS to decide. And although I was a bit surprised that the case got taken to CAS, I do think that this is a good thing (though I wish they would have settled this before the Tour).

[Strategy]

Will be interesting to see what the result of this weekends WADA meeting will be, as one of the issues that will be debated is the possibility of introducing a threshold for Clenbuterol - which would almost certainly be a threshold set at a point where Contador's test would not have been positive.

There are many anti-doping experts who have been requesting this (Jens Evald mentioned earlier is one of them), but also the British Anti-Doping chief for the Olympics is among the people who are lobbying for this to be put into the regulations before 2012.

The question then becomes: can they really suspend the athlete if the rules have been changed so that what was a positive is no longer considered a positive test?

[micomico]

The question then becomes: can they really suspend the athlete if the rules have been changed so that what was a positive is no longer considered a positive test?
[/quote]

the answer to that is yes. It has happened before to at least one case that I remember reading the files for a while back, don't remember his name. The decision specifically sited that the commission took place before the rule was changed, so that charges stood.

However, it would seem there is some political currency in something like this for a high profile athlete.

The flip side to that, apart from the plastics issue that Velonation suggests UCI has thrown in the mix, is that a big reason for them wanting thresholds for clen is that in parts of the world other than where AC tested positive, it can plausibly show up due to food contamination. Rarely so for AC's cows.

I continue to see the myth propagated in the media that AC's amount would not have been detected were it not for new, sophisticated and singularly-applied detection equipment. Perhaps credit AC's public relations efforts and a lackadaisical approach by a number of editors.

[Luigi Daniele]

Too dominant. Call me a cynic.

[lanterne_rouge]

Luigi Daniele, on 21 September 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

Too dominant. Call me a cynic.

Luigi, kind of sorry to have to be the first person to say this but .... Your point is?????

lr

[lanterne_rouge]

Quote

name='micomico' timestamp='1316363803' post='178359']
The question then becomes: can they really suspend the athlete if the rules have been changed so that what was a positive is no longer considered a positive test?

Quote

the answer to that is yes. It has happened before to at least one case that I remember reading the files for a while back, don't remember his name. The decision specifically sited that the commission took place before the rule was changed, so that charges stood.

I can't remember the case you refer to but there has been at least one high profile incidence of a rider avoiding sanction because the substance he tested positive for (probenecid) was at the time of the test on the IOC banned list, but not on the UCI list (UCI ban came in later that year afair). Probenecid can act as a masking agent for steroids. This was in 1988 and the rider was Pedro Delgado as I am sure forum members well know.
This was a case where a positive was not considered a positive because of rules lawyery; Delgado was not suspended and in fact went on to win the Tour that year. So that is a precedent - if a substance is not on the banned list yet, you can be let off. And in Delgado's case, no, he was not suspended or even penalized in any way.
lr

[micomico]

The hearing begins, and I wonder how much weight the timing of it will be given? 365 days a year, and it happens on the rest day just before the big mountain event in the TdF, when traditionally tank gases have been filled up.

Why not while living in Spain? Statiscally speaking... However, I know that I don't really know with certainty what happened, he could have a legitimate beef with the beef, 2012 will begin with interesting news.

[N.B.O.L.]

Don't know how much actual knowledge the reporters have or if they are speculating, but the consciences seems to be that WADA/UCI will be pushing the transfusion theory, and the butcher will say that Spain's meat supply is highly regulated, but he has no idea where the actual meat in question came from. (as in from what region, not that he didn't sell it)

This post has been edited by N.B.O.L.: 22 November 2011 - 09:09 PM