[VdB]

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

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.

Apart from clear political and vested interest reasons, Contador was banned for having the substance in his blood, and according to regulations the athlete is responsible for providing a proper explanation on how and why it got there. Since the TAS found Contador's explanation lacking, they banned him.

Of course, this guilty-until-you-prove-yourself-to-be-innocent system is a complete travesty of justice. There is a reason why the TAS is located in Switzerland...it's the only place the sports unions could safely install the tribunal without conflicting with many existing national and supranational laws.

If Contador chooses to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights he's almost guaranteed to win. The burden of proof being on him is essentially a breach of basic human rights (and then there's the labour implications too). He has the means, heck he even has the time. It may very well become something like a second Bosman ruling.

[Ali]

Strategy, on 08 February 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

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.

This is a good point and pretty much encapsulates what I learned from the Floyd Landis situation. Quite often, the doping authorities have information which convinces them that a particular rider is guilty of doping. In Contador's case, this has obviously been a long standing issue. However, that information is often hearsay ... convincing hearsay, but hearsay none the less. They then have to fit the evidence to suit the crime. Perhaps unethical, but probably just. You can't really argue with that.

They cleaned the sport up and discouraged further doping.

Ali

[buddy]

How much is it worth to stand atop the podium in Paris as the winner? I think it would be priceless. How can one put a number on the emotions that such an achievement would provide?

In regards to Contador when will all the brown nosers stop being accomodating and take him to task? Is it because they all know that it could have been them so "lets tread softly"?

I would like Andy Schleck to grow a set and take Contador to court. To seek damages for denying him the priceless opportunity of basking in TdF glory. Money cannot replce the experience but it would send a mighty message to the dope cheats. Do it at your risk .....health, status and financial.

The riders have to stop being so accomodating and rip the financial legs from underthe dope cheats. Maybe then the sport will clean itself up.

Thanks,

Buddy

[Strategy]

Ali, on 08 February 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

They cleaned the sport up and discouraged further doping.

Cleaned up the sport? How?

Contador will be back in August, at the latest, and will most likely return to dominate the next couple of years (if he needed any motivation, the UCI and WADA just gave it to him in spades). If he was doping before (as seems likely), he will certainly continue doping - why wouldn't he? If the Clenbuterol was a result of a blood transfusion, it is obvious that the tests do not actually work, because him getting caught the way he did was freakishly unfortunate.

I mean - seriously - Contador can even continue to walk around and declaim his innocence of actual doping, with the backing of the CAS ruling. How is that cleaning up the sport?

If CAS/WADA/UCI had wanted to clean up the sport, they would have given him a 2 year suspension - starting NOW (minus the months he served in 2010). The fact that they didn't stinks to high heaven of backroom deals - it is very clear that they do not want Contador to challenge the ruling, and thus figured out a compromise between WADA's firm standpoint that he must be suspended 2 years and something that the UCI believes Contador can accept (i.e., an effective 6 month suspension).

As VDB notes - if Contador really wanted to challenge this case and overturn the verdict, he would probably stand a fairly good chance of doing so. What WADA/UCI are banking on is that doing so will not be worthwhile for him. Even if he gets totally exonerated, taking the case to yet another court is unlikely to result in a fast enough procedure that he will be able to ride in the Tour de France. In addition, the UCI is holding an axe over AC's team (the World Tour license), that they can threaten to drop if he causes too much trouble.

Cancellara commented something to the effect that the case leaves one wondering whether the Court and the verdict can really be trusted. And that is a very bad place to be - especially since one of the main reasons many applauded taking this case to CAS was to avoid this situation. Would certainly be interesting to see Contador take this case to the European Courts, as VDB suggests.

[VdB]

Strategy, on 10 February 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

If CAS/WADA/UCI had wanted to clean up the sport, they would have given him a 2 year suspension - starting NOW (minus the months he served in 2010). The fact that they didn't stinks to high heaven of backroom deals - it is very clear that they do not want Contador to challenge the ruling, and thus figured out a compromise between WADA's firm standpoint that he must be suspended 2 years and something that the UCI believes Contador can accept (i.e., an effective 6 month suspension).

As VDB notes - if Contador really wanted to challenge this case and overturn the verdict, he would probably stand a fairly good chance of doing so. What WADA/UCI are banking on is that doing so will not be worthwhile for him. Even if he gets totally exonerated, taking the case to yet another court is unlikely to result in a fast enough procedure that he will be able to ride in the Tour de France. In addition, the UCI is holding an axe over AC's team (the World Tour license), that they can threaten to drop if he causes too much trouble.

Cancellara commented something to the effect that the case leaves one wondering whether the Court and the verdict can really be trusted. And that is a very bad place to be - especially since one of the main reasons many applauded taking this case to CAS was to avoid this situation. Would certainly be interesting to see Contador take this case to the European Courts, as VDB suggests.

Excellent analysis, Strat. I agree with all that, but I think it's possible (probably not very likely) that his suspension is, erh, suspended while appealing to a higher court. But again, seems unlikely and hardly an ideal situation for him to race with this stuff in the back of his head. I think one thing is certain in all of this: if AC decides to take his suspension as is, we're gonna see a very one-sided Vuelta this year.

[vaunTrevi]

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

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?

I'll have to admit Contador looked credible in the press conference video. He didn't pose an angry denial as some have in the past, just a quizzical wonder on how this could be happening to him. I'm not saying he's innocent, just that his demeanor and attitude made him more believable as a guy who just got screwed by fickle fate.
Then again I've been fooled before.
And this is why I hate those that don't have the balls to admit they doped from the start and try to cover it up and drag it out. They aren't doing any of us or the sport a favor.
In fact I think all of us appreciate a quick admission of the truth and confession if thats the case.
Regarding the decision on clen: I thought not having a threshold and thus you can have an athlete punished for an amount so small that it would have no performance benefit. - A threshold in the test could or may be - should be (?) set in the future.
Clenbuterol is used for asthmatics to aid in breathing in inhalers so it is widely available, mostly and is used to lose weight or in cattle/swine to increase leaness of meat (not something Contador needed to do)
That aside the WADA code of Strict Liability gives no defense if you took it in a supplement. It only judges if you had it in your system. In previous cases of a when a rider proved it was supplement caused the athlete lto test positive - they still got a ban of at least a year and some two.
Of course any rider would be very bright to save a sealed sample of all the supplements he takes in a season and purchase receipts so they could be tested to see if a supplement was the cause - not that it is a defense if it was - due to the strict liability clause.
The testimony for the plasticisers wasn't admitted as there is no validated test for the plasticisers so the CAS would not have used/should not use the info until it is. Fair enough.
Peculiar to this case is that Contador got to ride out most of his time ban... unlike Basso who served the full two year. Contador should be back almost as good as last season come August ready to race at a high level. That wasn't the case of Basso who took at least a year to return to form... proving the adage that you can't train to be in racing form you have to race for that.
So to me two nagging questions... no three:
Will Strict Liability ever be addressed/ or the punishment if you can prove source of the drug?
Will Clenbuterol test be given a threshold for a positive test?
When will we see a validated test for blood bag platicisers?
And who in gods name is going to go back and adjust the results of these races after the bans?
Ok I lied that wasn't three '
And should Lance Armstrong start worrying after the USADA gets the testimony from the Fed Grand Jury Hearings (would be a nice day for a wiki leak) '
Cheers, Vaughn

[micomico]

According to the experts that have spoken out on these matters in recent publications, AC has little chance of succesful appeal. That would seem to make sense.

The next court that would overturn matters would do so based largely on procedural issues - how the CAS handled it, and there does not seem to be an dissagreement on this matter. In fact, the opposite, as it was WADA who was furious that their plastics DHEP expert, Ashenden, was not allowed to testify, and a ruckus was raised, but WADA got their two years ( the actual time served, to 6 months, admitedly a travesty, was memorialized in statute before AC and was beyond this court's scope, or WADA's argument).

CAS very carefully handled a possible overturn by postponing the decision and getting written agreements that there was no legal issue with how that was handled before moving on. A sign that they had a careful eye on appeal dynamics.

The issue of going to the higher courts of human rights with a credible appeal because doping was not proved carries little weight.

AC's case is a large grain of sand in a beach already littered in the past few decades with many hundreds of Olympic and national-level athletes who tested positive for a banned substance and received punishment accordingly - without proof of directly doping.

These are not criminal investigations with jail time possibilities, and held accordingly to a higher threshold of proof. These are athletes that are, functionally and in awareness, signatories to national and international agreements concerning their responsibility to keep banned substances out of their bodies, with exceptional circumstances admitted. These agreements have been long-standing and internationally recognized for decades.

The essence of which extends far beyond the field of athletes and doping: many non-athletes working in a number of jobs throughout parts of the world are also asked to take drug tests, and if they fail, without having no direct proof of the actual doping-absent extenuating circumstances, legally suffer the consequences.

I don't see what facts or previous success by someone else with similar dynamics regarding the next layer in the appeal process, or the Court of Human Rights, would lead one to think that AC would have a good chance of succeeding.

I do think that CAS blundered by speculating in the manner that it did as to entry point. Had it remained either quiet, or if as a necessity they needed to publish some sort of speculation, they could simply had stated that they are wholly unsure as to how the clen got in. In claiming to the suspicion of contaminated food supplements, which is entirely speculative as no evidence was offered by either party to that effect, they opened up a can of worms, ascribing the possible to the likely implausibe and handing a sentence down that made no mention in speculation that the defendant may have doped.

The omission surprised me because the astute eyes of the CAS could not have missed that the clen was found on the day of the year most likely for someone in AC's shoes to dope.

This post has been edited by micomico: 11 February 2012 - 09:14 PM

[VdB]

I wouldn't necessarily take the fact that few people have gone beyond CAS and overturned the decision so far as an indicator for his chances of succeeding. How many people of Contador's means and status have been sentenced by the CAS, on such shaky grounds? It's not because something is a common or accepted practice that it is beyond the scope of supranational or human rights laws. Like I said, no one was really contesting the transfer practices in football (soccer) before Bosman came along either.

Eh, anyway, it's not that I think Contador is innocent or anything. I just think the ruling is ridiculous.

[micomico]

VdB, on 12 February 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

I wouldn't necessarily take the fact that few people have gone beyond CAS and overturned the decision so far as an indicator for his chances of succeeding. How many people of Contador's means and status have been sentenced by the CAS, on such shaky grounds? It's not because something is a common or accepted practice that it is beyond the scope of supranational or human rights laws. Like I said, no one was really contesting the transfer practices in football (soccer) before Bosman came along either.

Eh, anyway, it's not that I think Contador is innocent or anything. I just think the ruling is ridiculous.

VdB, do you find the ruling ridiculous because of what CAS speculated as to entry point for clen? Or because doping was not proved? I agree with you if the speculations that the CAS gave for entry point are seen by them as a justification for the decision.

My understanding is that the decision was made because the statutes say that it is up to the athlete to prove how the clen got it, and per the report, the butcher, supplier, and farmer were investigated with no evidence or reason to suspect that there had been clen involvement, no clen cases reported,etc. So the athlete did not make his case to threshold, nor are there any other entry points that met evidentiary threshold.

I think that the CAS did what they had to, sanction an athlete who could not, to use WADA code, "...establish how the prohibited substance entered his system".

He also did not meet, according the CAS, the two fallbacks that a number of other athletes were able to meet on clen (and other substances), the No Fault or Neglicence, as well as the No Signifant Fault or Negligence code section.

But did he or did he not? And here is where I see your point about it being ridiculous. By the CAS ascribing in speculative fashion that AC likely had supplement contamination, a lot of people react by saying it is common sense to acquit, he did not dope, he was a victim of supplemental circumstance. Although WADA code is pretty strict with this, others have gotten lesser sanctions, depending on the circumstances.

[VdB]

I think it's ridiculous because the rulings seems to be pretty random. There is a complete lack of uniformity by the WADA, CAS and other institutions on the prosecution of (small traces of) Clenbuterol.

It's outrageous that FIFA and WADA won't act on other, much larger problems like the U17 World Championship in Mexico a few months ago.

Quote

FIFA revealed that players from 19 of 24 teams competing in an Under-17 World Cup in Mexico this summer had traces of clenbuterol in their systems, with 109 of 208 samples coming back positive.

109 players!! I'm sure Mexico has crappy tainted meat, but even so, what is the justification for letting off all those players? Surely, they didn't all manage to prove to FIFA or WADA that their positive was a direct consequence of tainted meat?

As much as I believe Contador may well have gotten the clenbuterol positive from a blood transfusion, if they acquit even ONE athlete on the grounds that contaminated food is the reason, it's absolutely criminal to ban another one on the same basis if they can't prove otherwise.

But of course, cycling isn't football, and the UCI isn't even nearly in the same league of corruption as the FIFA. And that's saying something.

Other fun consequences of this madness:

Quote

Riders at the recent Tour of Beijing were so scared of testing positive for clenbuterol that nearly the entire peloton refused to eat beef or pork during their week-long trip.

“We haven’t eaten any meat at all during our time here, because we don’t want to take a risk,” Rabobank’s Theo Bos said. “I have lost 3kg because all we’re eating is salad and soup. Everyone is worried about it.”

[crockett]

If the riders are that concerned about eating contaminated beef or pork, they could always go to Taco Bell to avoid meat products.

I must say that Theo is in a different China than most know. There are usually many different and unusual protein sources on the menu at a restaurant in China. I doubt there is any clem in the baby sparrow entree.

[micomico]

crockett, on 13 February 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

If the riders are that concerned about eating contaminated beef or pork, they could always go to Taco Bell to avoid meat products.

I must say that Theo is in a different China than most know. There are usually many different and unusual protein sources on the menu at a restaurant in China. I doubt there is any clem in the baby sparrow entree.

-and with the cooked scorpions. does clen cross the blood brain barrier? unlikely, so cooked monkey's brains when cycling in parts of Asia are also yummy alternatives:)

[VdB]

I doubt the peloton is gonna switch from tainted meat to meat that may give them non-stop dhiarrea.

No but seriously, I think we can all agree that a sudden diet change in a different time zone during a professional stage race is hardly ideal.