# Bertie - Champ or cheat?



## oldgreyandslow (25 May 2011)

Just wondered what the general view of the man is now he's running (riding even) away with the giro? My view is that he failed a drugs test, yes he had an excuse, but don't they all, and a fails a fail, so he should not have even been given the opportunity to start the race.


----------



## rich p (25 May 2011)

No offence OG&S but until something new comes up about his CAS hearing I think I'll resist. 

If you want to know what we all think or thought I can refer you to this thread! 

https://www.cyclechat.net/


----------



## ufkacbln (25 May 2011)

Was it a valid drugs test though?

The test for EPO that was used in one of the Olympics showed several athletes to be positive.

Then when independently tested it showed that there was a small problem............... If you exercised (apparently some athletes do that!) then the proteins in the urine give a false positive.


----------



## Noodley (25 May 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Was it a valid drugs test though?
> 
> The test for EPO that was used in one of the Olympics showed several athletes to be positive.
> 
> Then when independently tested it showed that there was a small problem............... If you exercised (apparently some athletes do that!) then the proteins in the urine give a false positive.



Not sure what a test for EPO at the Olympics has got to do with it...


----------



## gb155 (26 May 2011)

Dirty....Bertie.....


----------



## philipbh (26 May 2011)

Noodley said:


> Not sure what a test for EPO at the Olympics has got to do with it...



Assuming that it was a "standard test" for EPO - then it demonstrates the repeatability (or not) of the test

You have a point though - legal technicality / loophole potential based on protocol etc


----------



## iAmiAdam (26 May 2011)

He definitely shouldn't be riding this year or next imo.

The test for clenbuterol was certified and he was over the limit, it's the test for plasticizers that isn't certified.


----------



## philipbh (26 May 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> The test for clenbuterol was certified and he was over the limit, it's the test for plasticizers that isn't certified.



Not so..

He tested positive for Clenbutarol - but the level was 40 times lower than the minimum required performance level for WADA accredited laboratories

I do think you are correct about the plasticizer test though


----------



## montage (26 May 2011)

I'm begining to think an awful lot of injustice has been thrown bertie's way


----------



## iAmiAdam (26 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> Not so..
> 
> He tested positive for Clenbutarol - but the level was 40 times lower than the minimum required performance level for WADA accredited laboratories
> 
> I do think you are correct about the plasticizer test though



Oh yeah, my mistake, I haven't looked at meatgate for a while now.


----------



## scook94 (26 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> Not so..
> 
> He tested positive for Clenbutarol - but the level was 40 times lower than the minimum required performance level for WADA accredited laboratories
> 
> I do think you are correct about the plasticizer test though



The acceptable level for Clenbuterol is ZERO. Any level above that is a fail.


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

scook94 said:


> The acceptable level for Clenbuterol is ZERO. Any level above that is a fail.



That is true. 

The point philipbh is making, and justifiably so imho, is that the lab that detected it is able to detect far far smaller quantities than any other approved lab. So? you ask. Still more than zero. That's guilty as charged m'lord. And, of course, you're right. Well, if that sample had gone to _any other_ approved lab it would have come back negative. Equally, presumably, other samples from other riders went to other labs. Is that fair? Is that 'level playing field'?

The UCI (or WADA, whoever) sets standards for labs. Personally, I feel those standards should be the defacto standards for riders too. I think it has to be that way to avoid different detection systems and luck of the draw testing.

I'm not saying that Contador is innocent, because I don't think he is, but you can't have a fair testing system if the results depend on who does the testing. I don't think that's just.


----------



## philipbh (26 May 2011)

scook94 said:


> The acceptable level for Clenbuterol is ZERO. Any level above that is a fail.



Can't argue with that - accept to say that any level above zero has then to be adequately explained away by the athlete to the governing bodies (UCI / WADA etc)

It is not grounds for immediate suspension without mitigation.

Various sources suggest that Contador's legal team have submitted somewhere between 90 to 130 pages of "evidence" to back their claim of innocent ingestion.


----------



## scook94 (26 May 2011)

Yello, it's simply progress. 

Labs are always going to be able to test for things and levels they weren't able to previously. Because some of the UCI approved Labs are lagging behind with current technology is no excuse.


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 May 2011)

I believe Bertie has and probably still dopes, likewise LA and a significant number of past & present others. It's got to a point where I question every great performance i.e Chris Horner winning the ToC. I've decided to just not worry about it and enjoy the racing anyway.


----------



## rich p (26 May 2011)

Well bugger me. They are now saying that Dirty Bertie's hearing at CAS may not be heard until after the TdF.

This is really unsatisfactory and messy.


----------



## yello (26 May 2011)

scook94 said:


> Labs are always going to be able to test for things and levels they weren't able to previously. Because some of the UCI approved Labs are lagging behind with current technology is no excuse.



That's not my point. The point is the same criteria being applied across the board. I simply don't think you can have different levels applied. If UCI wants only the most technologically advanced techniques applied then it should only use those labs capable of providing that. I'd have no problem with that. The rules are then being applied equally. 



rich p said:


> They are now saying that Dirty Bertie's hearing at CAS may not be heard until after the TdF. This is really unsatisfactory and messy.



Couldn't agree more. I'm sure Contador would have preferred it dealt with before too.


----------



## raindog (26 May 2011)

rich p said:


> Well bugger me. They are now saying that Dirty Bertie's hearing at CAS may not be heard until after the TdF.
> 
> This is really unsatisfactory and messy.


Agree - it's disgraceful. 
Why these things have to take so long........


----------



## addictfreak (26 May 2011)

This should have been sorted before the Giro never mind the TDF.

Lets just say he wins the TDF as well (looks like he has already claimed the giro) and is then banned. The two cyclists who finished second will have been robbed of the chance to stand on the top spot on the podium. A chance they may never get again.
The UCi etc really needs to get a grip on this.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 May 2011)

raindog said:


> Agree - it's disgraceful.
> *Why these things have to take so long........
> *




€


----------



## dellzeqq (26 May 2011)

addictfreak said:


> This should have been sorted before the Giro never mind the TDF.
> 
> Lets just say he wins the TDF as well (looks like he has already claimed the giro) and is then banned. The two cyclists who finished second will have been robbed of the chance to stand on the top spot on the podium. A chance they may never get again.
> The UCi etc really needs to get a grip on this.


quite 

just don't hold your breath


----------



## philipbh (27 May 2011)

addictfreak said:


> This should have been sorted before the Giro never mind the TDF.
> 
> Lets just say he wins the TDF as well (looks like he has already claimed the giro) and is then banned. The two cyclists who finished second will have been robbed of the chance to stand on the top spot on the podium. A chance they may never get again.
> The UCi etc really needs to get a grip on this.



*Alternative scenario:
*
AC wins the Giro and the Tour - CAS hearing goes ahead

CAS use AC's tests from 2011 to argue that he can win without "enhancements", so he had & has no motive to cheat and it would be wrong (for the good of the sport etc) to ban him for some small trangression ie. super low level of clenbutarol and the plasticiser - smallish fine by way of punishment

(Assumes he has no irregular test results this year)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> *Alternative scenario:
> *
> AC wins the Giro and the Tour - CAS hearing goes ahead
> 
> ...




and how, exactly, would the defence explain how the plasticiser got there innocently?


----------



## rich p (27 May 2011)

philipbh said:


> *Alternative scenario:
> *
> AC wins the Giro and the Tour - CAS hearing goes ahead
> 
> ...



Who's to say he's not microdosing now and will be at the TdF? Why do you assume he wouldn't dope now since he knows that he wasn't found positive last year for anything bar the the clenb cock-up.



GregCollins said:


> and how, exactly, would the defence explain how the plasticiser got there innocently?



They don't have to as it's not an acrredited test.


----------



## Crackle (27 May 2011)

It wasn't then, it is now. Accredited or not, for me that's the proof, that it can't be used is just part of the giant board game of cycling, meanwhile those in the real world know that Bertie's dirty, has no scruples and has almost certainly smartened up his doping regime whilst knowing a 103 pages of evidence is going to make CAS work and struggle to further convict him.


----------



## philipbh (27 May 2011)

rich p said:


> Who's to say he's not microdosing now and will be at the TdF? Why do you assume he wouldn't dope now since he knows that he wasn't found positive last year for anything bar the the clenb cock-up.



You've got me there  

I was just imagining the possibility of him being let off with a warning / escape sanctions

*Alternative Scenario II

*UCI / WADA / CAS are setting him up for a big fall - he wins the Volta / Giro / Tour in 2011

CAS rule that all his wins between the positive test and the ruling are struck from the record, back date the ban to the test and make him wait another 12 months before competing again

(Perhaps)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 May 2011)

Crackle said:


> It wasn't then, it is now. Accredited or not, for me that's the proof, that it can't be used is just part of the giant board game of cycling, meanwhile those in the real world know that Bertie's dirty, has no scruples and has almost certainly smartened up his doping regime whilst knowing a 103 pages of evidence is going to make CAS work and struggle to further convict him.




Here’s UCI rule 2.2.010 bis:_The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event. If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period. However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport._
​


----------



## rich p (27 May 2011)

Crackle said:


> It wasn't then, it is now. Accredited or not, for me that's the proof, that it can't be used is just part of the giant board game of cycling, meanwhile those in the real world know that Bertie's dirty, has no scruples and has almost certainly smartened up his doping regime whilst knowing a 103 pages of evidence is going to make CAS work and struggle to further convict him.




Is it accredited now? I hadn't heard that. 

edit:

This thread (posts 46 and 47) shed some light
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13162&page=5

It seems it's not acrredited but it's possible that WADA may use it as corroborative. Variation in other ways of showing plasicizers presence may prevent it being a stand alone test.


----------



## Crackle (27 May 2011)

rich p said:


> Is it accredited now? I hadn't heard that.
> 
> edit:
> 
> ...




My mistake, you are correct. I misread an an article. Anyway, news on the grapevine says they've all switched to Mylar bags which leave no trace.


We only need one court for Bertie


----------



## montage (27 May 2011)

Before the Giro, I was all for calling Bertie a cheat, but his actions and the way he is riding it just aren't that of a guilty man. If you were under such scrutiny and you were cheating, surely you would make it look as if you were trying harder rather than dominate every mountain stage....and to pass up a stage win like that, just doesn't seem like the sort of thing a power hungry cheat would do. Not saying I like him just yet, just that he seems to be very much innocent before proven guilty.


----------



## HLaB (27 May 2011)

I hope he's not cheating but his performances in the Giro have been superhuman, is everybody else that bad! Every time I have watched a performance like that it's been revealed they were cheating.


----------



## montage (27 May 2011)

HLaB said:


> I hope he's not cheating but his performances in the Giro have been superhuman, is everybody else that bad! Every time I have watched a performance like that it's been revealed they were cheating.



Cancellara?


----------



## Dayvo (27 May 2011)

montage said:


> Before the Giro, I was all for calling Bertie a cheat, but his actions and the way he is riding it just aren't that of a guilty man. If you were under such scrutiny and you were cheating, surely you would make it look as if you were trying harder rather than dominate every mountain stage....and to pass up a stage win like that, just doesn't seem like the sort of thing a power hungry cheat would do. Not saying I like him just yet, just that he seems to be very much innocent before proven guilty.




So you won't be legging it up the mountains alongside AC in your steak fancy dress suit, then, Monty!


----------



## HLaB (27 May 2011)

montage said:


> Cancellara?



Cancellara is good but he's not superhuman, ie climber, top TT er, GC, etc. And some certain Spanish geezer has even beaten Cancellara on the TT, his speciality. I hope I'm wrong but the all round dominance is suspicious, and I don't think I'm the only one to think that.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 May 2011)

HLaB said:


> Cancellara is good but he's not superhuman, ie climber, top TT er, GC, etc. *And some certain Spanish geezer has even beaten Cancellara on the TT, his speciality*. I hope I'm wrong but the all round dominance is suspicious, and I don't think I'm the only one to think that.


that did it for me.

He has no shame and very little guile. He's just going to go on as long as he can, believing that he can stay one step ahead of the authorities.


----------



## Noodley (27 May 2011)

*





*


----------



## dellzeqq (27 May 2011)

the question is - who has been surgically removed from that picture?


----------



## montage (28 May 2011)

Dayvo said:


> So you won't be legging it up the mountains alongside AC in your steak fancy dress suit, then, Monty!



Still on the cards!


----------



## gb155 (28 May 2011)

montage said:


> Still on the cards!



Thats gonna be EPIC


----------



## iAmiAdam (28 May 2011)

Looks like a lot of the arguments are based on his giro dominance.

I know I've changed my tune by quite some way, but I hate doping scandals and try not to look at the news websites as much as I can, it makes watching the racing much better. So, it kinda annoys me when people create their own conspiracies through just watching someone dominate. Doing this really does ruin it, just watch the sport for what it is at face value.


----------



## Noodley (28 May 2011)

...or read the stories and the facts and make your own mind up


----------



## BJH (28 May 2011)

Don't believe in him and at the only points that I began to question my own judgement (falling apart in Paris Nice, a couple of days in the TdF last year) he goes and fails a test.

So, it's cheat for me.


----------



## naffets (30 May 2011)

cheat or no cheat, it should have been cleared up a long time ago but you have to admit that was one display of sheer dominance this giro! looks like hes ffree to ride the tour.Does that mean if he carrys his form to the tdf that the rest will be riding for second hoping for his positive test???


----------



## fozzy (30 May 2011)

come on, have we really reached the point where anyone who dominates a tour is cheating? must every race be close, is it imposssible for a person to be very good at what they do? or maybe even that the people they are racing against aren't as good as we believe them to be? do some people really think you should be letting other contendors get close to you or not trying your hardest to cement a victory? i don't know if AC is guilty or innocent, i don't really trust the UCI to act in the best interests of the sport [taking donations from competing athletes, even the swiss government is looking at the rules that apply to governing bodies that reside in the country], i think it strange that different labs are used to different standards of testing, it's strange that the national governing body is told to make a decsion on a case then before its' verdict the governing body says they are going to appeal. the whole thing stinks of corruption and personal dislikes getting in the way of justice. i hope he didn't do it, cos i really like the way he races, but this whole situation has fallen into such a farce that i've reached the point where i really don't care anymore. i just hope he rides the tour and has a ding dong battle with the shlecks, the australian and basso [plus a few others]. i'll enjoy it a face value and trust the verdict that is handed down from a proper court of law, which seems the inevitable conclusion to this sorry saga. my apologies, rant over.


----------



## lukesdad (31 May 2011)

To put the Giro in perspective, he didn t have much to beat did he ?


----------



## yello (31 May 2011)

lukesdad said:


> To put the Giro in perspective, he didn t have much to beat did he ?



Without meaning any disrespect to the other riders there, no, you've got a point. The time gap he had could probably have been filled by absent names, if you get my drift. 

Still, his palmares will reflect that he won... as equally as 2nd and 3rd and 4th etc will read the same. There's never a mention of who wasn't there.


----------



## rich p (31 May 2011)

.....or possibly wiped from the palmares!


----------



## yello (31 May 2011)

rich p said:


> .....or possibly wiped from the palmares!



Ah yes, that's true too. I hope not simply because I don't want another 'cycling winner stripped of title' headline leading the world's papers but the CAS clearly has the authority.


----------



## lukesdad (31 May 2011)

rich p said:


> .....or possibly wiped from the palmares!



Oooh Rich I could do with my palmares being wiped


----------



## Mac66 (31 May 2011)

The rule is simple. No lower threshold for Clenbuterol. There is no defence. 

Fair? Maybe not, but I think cycling has long passed the point of of 'benefit of the doubt'


----------



## monnet (31 May 2011)

I'm going with champion on this one and I am unrelentingly pessimistic regarding the amount of doping in cycling. For a number of reasons. 

1) Liquigas (and all the rest) who were at the Giro and in the midsts of their own doping scandals. Ok, some riders were withdrawn but the scandals implicated whole teams, for me. So he beat riders who were more than likely juiced up as well. I see this as a sort of 'Armstrong Defence' - I have no doubt Armstrong was juiced up, but so was everyone else so it was in essence a level playing field and Armstrong's dedication won him his tours. 

2) Contador has won every Grand Tour he's entered. Doped or not, that's an incredible achievement. 

3) As someone else has said, just because someone's dominant, it doesn't mean they've cheated. Much cited through the ages is the phenomenal win record of Merckx. Who tested positive. I know, I know, there are differences but let's put the rose tinted glasses away for a minute and acknowledge that the legend we love was hated so much that a spectator whacked him in the kidney in '75. 

4) Doped or not he's far more exciting to watch than alot of GT winners of late. He attacks. He rides other events,has even won the odd Classic whilst in his Tour winning prime. Just like Lance, oh...And he's not sticking to riding the TdeF when it comes to GTs either. These things have to be good for cycling - a champion riding more than one race and trying to win them rather than using them as training. 

5) More of an aspiration this one. Cycling looks pretty stupid and the delay now means that he could potentially have 2 TdeFs, a Giro and a Vuelta (let's speculate he wins the triple). I just don't want the sport to have to take that kind of hit to its credibility. I acknowledge that sounds desperate. 

Anyway, my view, who cares about the clenbuterol, I think questions should really be asked about the plasticiser which is evidence of far more dubious practices which are clearly still alive in the sport. Ricci was probably only doing what plenty of others get a doctor to do but because no one would go near him he took the risk of doing it himself. 

Purely from a sporting point of view - I think Contador is a champion (but I'm not 'steaking' my house on him being clean).


----------



## philipbh (1 Jun 2011)

Mac66 said:


> The rule is simple. No lower threshold for Clenbuterol. There is no defence.
> 
> Fair? Maybe not, but I think cycling has long passed the point of of 'benefit of the doubt'



Its in the rules though - you can weasel out of a ban if you have a strong enough case (which the Spanish Fedration think he has) or a note from your statistician


----------



## threebikesmcginty (1 Jun 2011)

philipbh said:


> Its in the rules though - you can weasel out of a ban if you have a strong enough case (which the Spanish Fedration think he has)* or a note from your statistician*


----------



## yello (1 Jun 2011)

Whilst touched on in another thread, it's more relevant here. From CyclingNews, ASO can't stop Contador riding the TdF.



> The race director Christian Prudhomme confirmed today to _AFP _that there is nothing the Amaury Sport Organisation can do to block Contador from competing in this year's race.


----------



## lilolee (4 Jun 2011)

+1 on everything monnet said.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Jun 2011)

andrew.nicolls@mhpc.com 
http://www.mhpc.com/banking-capital-markets 

This man. Media spinner for Saxo in the UK. If you think Contador reflects poorly on the bank, send him an e-mail.


----------



## Alun (8 Jun 2011)

"Howman confirmed that WADA is studying a possible threshold for Clenbuterol" (Cycling News)
It would be rather perverse if Contador was banned, stripped of a Giro title and maybe 2 TdF wins, and then they introduced a threshold above 50 picograms.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Jun 2011)

but not as perverse as Contador's explanation......


----------



## Alun (8 Jun 2011)

That's for CAS to decide !


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Jun 2011)

Alun said:


> That's for CAS to decide !


fair do's, but each of us can come to our own view of what constitutes perversity, and, in Contador's case, a bit of 'reverse perversity' wouldn't strike me as being unfair


----------



## Crackle (8 Jun 2011)

Contador's excuse is still the equivalent of hiring two lawyers and producing a 300 page defence of why the dog ate his homework.


----------



## Bicycle (8 Jun 2011)

*Bertie - Champ or cheat?

*Yes.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Jun 2011)

Bicycle said:


> *Bertie - Champ or cheat?
> 
> *Yes.


and congratulations on the username!


----------



## johnr (13 Jun 2011)

THIS from the Guardian a few days ago:



> The rider Riccardo Ricco has been suspended on an indefinite basis by the Italian Cycling Federation, after it was alleged that the 27-year-old performed a blood transfusion on himself. Ricco, below, who served a 20-month ban after testing positive for EPO during the 2008 Tour de France, was accused by doctors of carrying out the life-threatening procedure in February, shortly after he had to go to hospital with a serious illness. Ricco was sacked by his team, Vacansoleil-DCM, soon after but managed to get signed up by a second-tier Italian-based Croatian team, Meridiana-Kamen, in time for the start of tomorrow's Tour of Serbia. He will no longer be able to compete in the race. Criticising the decision of the FCI, Meridiana's team manager, Antonio Giallorenzo, said: "It's right that they do their job but you should look at the others, like [Alberto] Contador, for example. Besides, who hasn't made a mistake in his life? He [Ricco] made a mistake the first time [in 2008], the second time is in doubt." Ricco has always denied that he carried out the blood transfusion. "I was hospitalised for kidney failure," he said. "It is a problem that could happen to anyone, even to that individual who leads a perfect life."



Interesting that Ricco seems to be claiming he's more innocent than Clenbutador (or is it Albertanol), what a great defence... but given what these guys get away with, well worth a try!


----------



## philipbh (14 Jun 2011)

johnr said:


> Interesting that Ricco seems to be claiming he's more innocent than Clenbutador (or is it Albertanol), what a great defence... but given what these guys get away with, well worth a try!



Ricco's story is getting a bit muddled

Cycling News reported in February that (according to Gazzetta dello Sport) Ricco's doctor had said that Ricco admiited the transfusion (of 25 day old blood) to him

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-police-investigate-ricco-for-blood-doping


----------



## raindog (16 Jun 2011)

Berto busted for no lights on bike





http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/police-interrupt-contadors-tour-de-france-recon


----------



## HLaB (1 Jul 2011)

Yesterday's response sounds a bit like a certain American Fellow


> From the beginning of the season I've been the rider who's had the most doping tests, and I've been tested in all the races I've been in


. Full link


----------

