[VdB]

http://www.google.co...ebefe191339b100

[The Rake]

VdB, on 06 February 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

http://www.google.co...ebefe191339b100

Schleck TdF champion and Scarponi Giro champion. Apparently all results from 2010 onwards reversed and ban in place until August. Back for the Vuelta

[VdB]

The Rake, on 06 February 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Schleck TdF champion and Scarponi Giro champion. Apparently all results from 2010 onwards reversed and ban in place until August. Back for the Vuelta

I guess I'm gonna have to start taking back my statements about AS not being a winner now.

[The Rake]

Eurosport commentator at Tour of Qatar calling it a "great day for cycling".

Numpty.

[buddy]

Well the thing that disappoints is that the CAS have said that blood doping is about as likely as having injested the clen through meat. The most likely source is contaminated food supplement. If that is the case I felt for Contador because that would mean it wasn't intentional given the minute amount.

I was happy for him to be banned if he blood doped because he would be another cheating Spaniard. But under these circumstances ..................

Having said that the CAS disallowed evidence from Ashendon regarding blood doping so maybe they didn't want to know.

Thanks,

Buddy

[Jayhawk]

buddy, on 06 February 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Well the thing that disappoints is that the CAS have said that blood doping is about as likely as having injested the clen through meat. The most likely source is contaminated food supplement. If that is the case I felt for Contador because that would mean it wasn't intentional given the minute amount.

I always suspected it came from some "natural" something he took to relieve his hay fever in the spring. I am wary of supplements.

Sad weekend for cycling. The big fish gets off, the little fish gets the hook. And poor Ullrich is left dangling.

[VdB]

Jayhawk, on 06 February 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

I always suspected it came from some "natural" something he took to relieve his hay fever in the spring. I am wary of supplements.

Sad weekend for cycling. The big fish gets off, the little fish gets the hook. And poor Ullrich is left dangling.

Not that I don't agree with the overall sentiment, but it may be more accurate to say that the powerful fish gets off the hook. Contador may be no LA, but I wouldn't call him a little fish either!

[Strategy]

IMO, neither a sad or a good day for Cycling. Have to say I personally can't get worked up about the judgement one way or the other. On the one hand, I kind of feel that there are good arguments for exonerating him, but on the other hand, he is guilty according to the letter of the law.

The sad day for Cycling was 1 1/2 years ago, when this case blew up. And not so much that it was a rider of Contador's caliber who got caught, but rather the length of the case. That this case has taken almost 1 and a half years to resolve has been and is a disaster, pure and simple.

Hopefully Contador decides to not contest the verdict so that he and the world of Cycling can move on - though obviously a lot will depend on the finances of the case (whether he will lose a huge amount of money from accepting the judgement).

[Strategy]

Though, to be honest, reading the summary of the CAS conclusion (most likely cause for the positive test being a contaminated supplement), I don't really understand why they decided to penalize him.

So if it's likely to be from contaminated meat, you get exonerated, but not if it is from a contaminated food supplment? That is just totally, utterly absurd.

[Jayhawk]

Strategy, on 06 February 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Though, to be honest, reading the summary of the CAS conclusion (most likely cause for the positive test being a contaminated supplement), I don't really understand why they decided to penalize him.

So if it's likely to be from contaminated meat, you get exonerated, but not if it is from a contaminated food supplement? That is just totally, utterly absurd.

My feelings exactly.

"The Panel concluded that both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytical findings, but were however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."

In the end, the court based its decision on the fact that Contador could not prove he did not ingest the Clenbuterol on purpose."

And the court can't prove that he DID ingest it on purpose. Does the presumption of innocence until proven guilty not apply to the CAS?

Can someone remind me, who requested the German lab test to begin with & for what reason?

[micomico]

Strategy, on 06 February 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Though, to be honest, reading the summary of the CAS conclusion (most likely cause for the positive test being a contaminated supplement), I don't really understand why they decided to penalize him.

So if it's likely to be from contaminated meat, you get exonerated, but not if it is from a contaminated food supplment? That is just totally, utterly absurd.

Remember there had been over 15 athletes, most outside cycling, who have been penalized for clen, some of them in small amounts as well. And some of them, after being penalized, fessed up. This according to the head of the anti-doping lab in Canada.

And otthers, like cyclist Li, paid the price for clen.

That is partly why WADA got involved. This is not just a cycling issue. The burden of proof, once a positive substance is detected, falls on the athlete to prove where it came from. There has been more than one case where an athlete was exonerated on clen due to mitigating circumstances.

It is not to up WADA or UCI to prove that doping took place, contrary to the claims of the spanish armada. That would make the playing field too tilted.

The court speculates as to where the clen may have come from, but that is not central to the case. Contador did not prove where it came from to the threshold of evidence needed.

It would be a shame, I agree, if it came from a contaminated food supplement, which the court suggests as possible.

Let's not forget the timing: Contador would have ingested a contaminated food supplement with clen on the 2nd rest day, and on the day before he has the biggest mountain challenge of the Tour, which is when a doping cyclist traditionally tanks up. He does not test positive for the contaminated food supplements during the rest of the year, even though he is extensively tested. And during the tour, cyclists typically do not try new supplements, leaving nothing to chance.

I don't know what happened, if he is truly guilty of accidental clen transfusion or ate tainted beef or, as the court speculates, maybe a food supplement (I am sure that Contador's team would likely have gone over that with a fine-tooth comb).

Then there is Floyd: his take on it was that he did not take testosterone when he got caught, but yes to EPO and something else. He figured out later that it was the testosterone traces in his transfused blood that showed positive, and thinks that is what happened to AC with the clen when he transfused prior to the big mountain stage.

The CAS refused to hear UCI/WADAs expert on that subject.

Will AC be forced to return the money earnings to the Tour, Giro, etc? Will those race organizers redistribute the monies that should have gone to Scarponi and AS?

This post has been edited by micomico: 06 February 2012 - 07:12 PM

[crockett]

micomico, on 06 February 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

Remember there had been over 15 athletes, most outside cycling, who have been penalized for clen, some of them in small amounts as well. And some of them, after being penalized, fessed up. This according to the head of the anti-doping lab in Canada.

And otthers, like cyclist Li, paid the price for clen.

That is partly why WADA got involved. This is not just a cycling issue. The burden of proof, once a positive substance is detected, falls on the athlete to prove where it came from. There has been more than one case where an athlete was exonerated on clen due to mitigating circumstances.

It is not to up WADA or UCI to prove that doping took place, contrary to the claims of the spanish armada. That would make the playing field too tilted.

The court speculates as to where the clen may have come from, but that is not central to the case. Contador did not prove where it came from to the threshold of evidence needed.

It would be a shame, I agree, if it came from a contaminated food supplement, which the court suggests as possible.

Let's not forget the timing: Contador would have ingested a contaminated food supplement with clen on the 2nd rest day, and on the day before he has the biggest mountain challenge of the Tour, which is when a doping cyclist traditionally tanks up. He does not test positive for the contaminated food supplements during the rest of the year, even though he is extensively tested. And during the tour, cyclists typically do not try new supplements, leaving nothing to chance.

I don't know what happened, if he is truly guilty of accidental clen transfusion or ate tainted beef or, as the court speculates, maybe a food supplement (I am sure that Contador's team would likely have gone over that with a fine-tooth comb).

Then there is Floyd: his take on it was that he did not take testosterone when he got caught, but yes to EPO and something else. He figured out later that it was the testosterone traces in his transfused blood that showed positive, and thinks that is what happened to AC with the clen when he transfused prior to the big mountain stage.

The CAS refused to hear UCI/WADAs expert on that subject.

Will AC be forced to return the money earnings to the Tour, Giro, etc? Will those race organizers redistribute the monies that should have gone to Scarponi and AS?

Well said micromico. It has been so long that the context had become lost on me, and the decision in a vaccuum seems overly harsh.

Two other burning questions.

Will WP points be redistributed as well? I had Scarponi.

I think this officially moves JJ Cobo into a tie (with Sastre and Pereiro) atop the Spanish GT rider rankings of this generation (ahead of Contador, Heras, Valverde, Aitor, Casero). Who's with me??

[Strategy]

micomico, on 06 February 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

Remember there had been over 15 athletes, most outside cycling, who have been penalized for clen, some of them in small amounts as well. And some of them, after being penalized, fessed up. This according to the head of the anti-doping lab in Canada.

And otthers, like cyclist Li, paid the price for clen.

True, there are several athletes who have been penalized for Clenbuterol. Others have gotten off scot-free, including - if I recall correctly - several who have gotten clenbuterol through food supplements (as CAS suggests is most likely in this case). In other cases, the cyclist got off with 1 year for having ingested clenbuterol through food supplements.

But frankly, the fact that Contador gets punished is not what bothers me.

What does bother me is that the Court finds Contador innocent of doping (that is the essence of the ruling) and still decide that he should get a 2 years suspension.

Conclusion - it is completely irrelevant whether a Cyclist is doped up to the eyeballs with EPO or considered innocent - fall afoul of the anti-doping system, and you're up for two years. I hate to talk of this as an injustice (inasmuch as only Contador knows whether he was actually doping or not), but from an objective, neutral point of view I can't see how this can be considered anything but a complete miscarriage of justice. Not that we did not realize this before, but it once again proves just how broken the anti-doping codex has unfortunately become.

This post has been edited by Strategy: 06 February 2012 - 08:44 PM

[TheMight]

Strategy, on 06 February 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

What does bother me is that the Court finds Contador innocent of doping (that is the essence of the ruling) and still decide that he should get a 2 years suspension.

Is this just legalese or would a second positive not result in a life time ban**?


(** I know, I know, a life time ban assuming he got a second positive and some other nation's cycling federation was overseeing things.. I know Spain is 'different')

[The Rake]

crockett, on 06 February 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Will WP points be redistributed as well? I had Scarponi.

If Crockett is referring to WP points, then surely this is a protocol violation?

[Ali]

I'm sad to say I feel a bit sorry for Contador ... although I always thought he was a doper.

The irony is exquisite, however, in that this coincides with Lance being cleared forever.

Still, I guess he'll have to take his licks like all the other dopers. That's what happens when you cheat ?

[micomico]

Ali, on 07 February 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I'm sad to say I feel a bit sorry for Contador ... although I always thought he was a doper.

The irony is exquisite, however, in that this coincides with Lance being cleared forever.

Still, I guess he'll have to take his licks like all the other dopers. That's what happens when you cheat ?

The irony, of course, is that Lance was not cleared of doping. Only of fraud/conspiracy charges associated with doping. The feds could have had videos of him shooting up and still not have had a valid legal charge; doping itself was an ancillary issue.

Where the other shoe may drop is how the US attorney's office, which is under a ton of heat for the decision as well as how they went about it, handles the request for sharing the information from the US cycling association and WADA.

Let's wait for the equivalent of the final time trial before we crown podium placings.

The legal race was just the tough mountain stages; his legacy may hang on what may yet come out, and what is done with it.

[buddy]

Obviously Contador had to be doped because he opened Armstrong's can of whoop ass before Lance could get to it.


Micomico .... you speak with a sense that will be lost on some.

Thanks,

Buddy

[The Rake]

I do feel for Contador at the moment, and after watched the press conference where he really did look like a little boy lost. It just seems incredibly odd that the CAS basically agreed with Contador that it was something he ate and not something he injected, but that he loses because it wasn't (or he couldn't prove it was) beef.

Anyway, I felt it odd that Riis was sat with at the press conference. Riis openly admitted to doping and keeps his Tour win, while Contador may have accidentally ingested an infinitessimally small speck of Clen (to build muscle mass - so the tiniest bit in this case), loses his Tour, Giro etc.

Wonder how Contador privately feels about that?

[Strategy]

The Rake, on 08 February 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Wonder how Contador privately feels about that?

To be honest, I don't think he cares. I read a comment from Alexander Rasmussen on the subject, where he pointed out that he wouldn't care - as he says, as a rider you are thinking forward to your next race, not backward at your palmares.

This attitude accords very well to the kind of attitude displayed by others in similar situation (e.g., Riis). The race is done. He won them. To many people - and certainly to the people whose opinion Contador cares about (the Spanish) - he will always be the winner of the 2010 Tour and 2011 Giro. He was the guy who got applaud on the top step of the podium. You can't change the past - so ultimately the CAS decision in this respect is just paperwork.

If anything really hurts him about this, I expect it is the monetary fines + lawyer's fees and not being able to set things right at the Tour in 2012. As Michael Rasmussen commented - anyone who had ambitions about winning the 2012 Vuelta may as well just forget about it now.


Reading the CAS report, I sort of understand WADA's decision to pursue the case against Contador. It is obvious that they feel that strongly believe that Contador was doped with a blood transfusion. However, it is equally obvious that they evidence they had against him would ever have been sufficient for a regular doping case. If we assume that Contador is in fact guilty of doping in this way, WADA essentially pulled equivalent of putting the mobster in jail for tax evasion, when he is really guilty of murder.

The problem just comes when it is not at all obvious from the evidence that the mobster is guilty of murder. And the actual judgement appears completely arbitrary. In the Danish news, they listed ten different Clenbuterol cases of recent years - each essentially had a different outcome (everything from exoneration, dropped charges, 1 and 2 year suspensions). It really is a mess.

We can only hope that Contador's case will result in an actual reform of the judicial anti-doping process (including speeding it up). Then at least we can be sure some good has come of this.