# Contador banned



## Nearly there (6 Feb 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-sanction-contador-with-two-year-ban-in-clenbuterol-case

Dumbass


----------



## cd365 (6 Feb 2012)

About time it was sorted


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

Blimey, I wasn't expecting that! I genuinely thought he'd walk!


----------



## Nearly there (6 Feb 2012)

I want to kick him in the nuts for dragging cycling through the mud again


----------



## PpPete (6 Feb 2012)

Out of the Olympics and this years TDF .... good,
back in time for the Vuelta .... not so good.


----------



## smokeysmoo (6 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> Blimey, I wasn't expecting that! I genuinely thought he'd walk!


 +1 for really surprised. Glad though if I'm honest.
So Andy Schelck wins his first TDF, guess it's karma re-paying him for AC's attack when his chain slipped.


----------



## Noodley (6 Feb 2012)

Good. But it is a strange world we live in when he has been allowed to continue to race and win, then gets his wins stripped and the ban back-dated...so essentially he can be racing again in 6 months at the Vuelta.

My view would be to strip all his wins from the date of the test, but to start the ban from the day it was imposed. Then we might see fewer riders prolonging matters with ridiculous stories of how a large cow jumped into their bed and licked their scrotums whilst they slept.


----------



## ohnovino (6 Feb 2012)

I wonder if he'll appeal? I can't really see him wanting to drag the matter out


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2012)

Good news but as Noodley says it seems perverse that he's been able to ride and ban is deemed concurrent. Stripping the results is something but slightly unsatisfactory. No doubt he'll keep protesting with the preposterous meat defence.


----------



## ohnovino (6 Feb 2012)

Noodley said:


> Good. But it is a strange world we live in when he has been allowed to continue to race and win ...


 
... and presumably get paid too. It can't be right that someone who owns up straight away loses 2 years' salary, but someone who keeps denying it only loses 6 months'.


----------



## Noodley (6 Feb 2012)

rich p said:


> ...he'll keep protesting with the preposterous meat defence.


 
I have visions of nekkid male barristers.


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

Noodley said:


> I have visions of nekkid male barristers.


 
What else is new?


----------



## jdtate101 (6 Feb 2012)

ohnovino said:


> I wonder if he'll appeal? I can't really see him wanting to drag the matter out


Yes he can, but from what I understand he can't appeal against the actual case (ie doping), but can only appeal if there's been some sort of legal issue (ie mis-trial or some other such legal cockup).

So expect this to carry on for a bit longer, whilst his legal team tries to find some 'wiggle' room on a technicality.


----------



## fossyant (6 Feb 2012)

About time !


----------



## Keith Oates (6 Feb 2012)

I must say that I'm disappointed at the result. I know nothing about the various drugs that are being used by cyclists but from what I've read that amount found was so small as to not have any affect on his performance so it begs the question, why did he take it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2012)

Keith Oates said:


> I must say that I'm disappointed at the result. I know nothing about the various drugs that are being used by cyclists but from what I've read that amount found was so small as to not have any affect on his performance so it begs the question, why did he take it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 Blimey Keith - we've done this one somany times!!!!!!!!

Either through contaminated supplements, contaminated meat or a blood transfusion using blood he'd stored earlier which was already contaminated with clenbuterol. Take your pick.


----------



## Alun (6 Feb 2012)

Noodley said:


> My view would be to strip all his wins from the date of the test, but to start the ban from the day it was imposed.


That would be a three and a half year ban, which would see the TdF declared as non compliant with WADA's policy, like our own BOA.


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2012)

Alun said:


> That would be a three and a half year ban, which would see the TdF declared as non compliant with WADA's policy, like our own BOA.


 Except that he hasn't been banned for 18 months - he's been racing and earning.


----------



## Alun (6 Feb 2012)

Guilty, two year ban. At last!
How many other riders had as much or more clenbutamol in their system, but walked free because their blood was tested at a different lab, which couldn't detect such a minute amount. The UCI need to set a level playing field, if not by use of a threshold then by some other means.


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> So expect this to carry on for a bit longer, whilst his legal team tries to find some 'wiggle' room on a technicality.


 
I wouldn't anticipate that happening. He's effectively got a 7 or 8 month ban (rightly or wrongly), I reckon he'll take it on the chin. Or pack up his toys and go and sulk in the corner like he threatened to!

It's the response of the Spanish federation (and government) that interests me at the moment.


----------



## Nearly there (6 Feb 2012)

If anyones watching Eurosport Eddy Merckx made a comment and appears to say Contador has done nothing wrong and its all been blown out of proportion because the amount used wasnt enough to enhance performance,Should a Legend like Merckx be saying such things?Or was his comments lost in translation?As a sport should It not be seen as being tough on cheats?


----------



## Alun (6 Feb 2012)

rich p said:


> Except that he hasn't been banned for 18 months - he's been racing and earning.


 His results for the last 18 months have been set aside, he wasn't really racing, just riding along in the pelaton. If his team want to pay him that is a decision for them.


----------



## Keith Oates (6 Feb 2012)

rich p said:


> Blimey Keith - we've done this one somany times!!!!!!!!
> 
> Either through contaminated supplements, contaminated meat or a blood transfusion using blood he'd stored earlier which was already contaminated with clenbuterol. Take your pick.


 
Yes Rich, we have been through it before but now we must accept that he's been banned because they consider he deliberately took the drug to enhance performance. Hence my question why did he do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## johnnyh (6 Feb 2012)

Sooooo pleased with this.
Although it is another smear on the sport


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2012)

Alun said:


> His results for the last 18 months have been set aside, he wasn't really racing, just riding along in the pelaton. If his team want to pay him that is a decision for them.


 
He affected lots of races by being there. His attack in last years TdF was significant, he 'won' the Giro!!!, he 'earned' other riders prize money, he has stayed race fit unlike other 2 year banned riders etc


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2012)

Keith Oates said:


> Yes Rich, we have been through it before but now we must accept that he's been banned because they consider he deliberately took the drug to enhance performance. Hence my question why did he do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
The CAS ruling suggests that it could, in theory, be due to a supplement but most peoples take on it is that he infused blood he'd stored from earlier in June. He took clenb. to aid weight loss and normally after 3 days it has disappeared. That blood was used during the rest day of the TdF and because the German lab can detect smaller quantities than ever before, he got caught out. This also explains the presence of plasticisers from the infusion blood bags.


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

> the amount used wasnt enough to enhance performance


 
I think everyone acknowledges that. I don't think anyone believes he micro-dosed clenb. Hence the possibility of the contaminated meat theory (though implausible in Contador's case).

What is being claimed (though maybe not explicitly or formally) is that it's evidence of a blood transfusion. Personally, I think it's dodgy ground. Yes, it points to it, there's a good chance it is what happened, but it doesn't *prove* it. It's simply a theory to explain how the clenb got there in such small quantities. That is, disregarding the disputed (and non-approved??) plastizers test.

It's why I thought he'd get off.


----------



## smokeysmoo (6 Feb 2012)

johnnyh said:


> Although it is another smear on the sport


Perhaps that's why the powers that be made the decision they did. At least they have been seen to act appropriately as opposed to letting him walk.


----------



## Keith Oates (6 Feb 2012)

You are correct that a lot of people think he did a blood infusion but as I understand it this was not what the CAS were considering as there was no proof of this submitted to them as far as I can see. Therefore I return to my question why did he take a weight loss supplement during a race which it seems is what the CAS consider he did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hont (6 Feb 2012)

"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."

i.e. In the Panel's opinion he did not intentionally dope but, as it was a contaminated food supplement, Contador can be considered responsible for it entering his system. That is my inference from their statement. Whether their statement is what all of them actually thought, who knows.


----------



## Hont (6 Feb 2012)

And like pratically everybody, I am incredibly annoyed with how long this process has taken. It makes last year's Giro a complete joke.

And I would be much happier if it was a case of a victory for clean athletes, but I can't find myself believing in the two named below.

"The ban means Contador will lose race results dating back to and including the 2010 Tour de France. Andy Schleck will become the Tour de France champion while Michele Scarponi is crowned winner of the Giro d'Italia"


----------



## Alun (6 Feb 2012)

I think the most likely explanation is that he had a blood transfusion, but the test for plasticisers is still not approved even 18 months later, so could not be used as evidence.

There is also the case that on the day he "tested" positive for plasticisers he did not fail on Clenbutamol, that happened the next day. I haven't seen an explanation for why this should be.

It could be that the contaminated meat was true, but CAS upheld the "zero tolerance" approach.


----------



## Globalti (6 Feb 2012)

[_smugly vindicated mode_]

I got flamed at the time for posting that I had lived in a Spanish hall of residence and taught English to lads like him and I didn't trust him, I said he was too smarmy for my liking. People flamed me for making a judgement from what I'd seen on TV.

[_/smugly vindicated_]


----------



## Keith Oates (6 Feb 2012)

If that is the case Hont, then I can understand why he is being punished. I'm glad I don't have to examine and test everything I eat and drink to make sure I stay employed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Alun (6 Feb 2012)

rich p said:


> He affected lots of races by being there. His attack in last years TdF was significant, he 'won' the Giro!!!, he 'earned' other riders prize money, he has stayed race fit unlike other 2 year banned riders etc


 It's not a satisfactory result, but it's more than a lot of people thought he would get. It's a 2 year ban, it either starts from when he was tested or from now. Can't start from now as that would mean he would retain the 2010 TdF and the Giro.

How much of the 18 month wait can be blamed on Contador (if you accept the right to plead not guilty), and how much on the authorities ?


----------



## Alun (6 Feb 2012)

Globalti said:


> [_smugly vindicated mode_]
> 
> I got flamed at the time for posting that I had lived in a Spanish hall of residence and taught English to lads like him and I didn't trust him, I said he was too smarmy for my liking. People flamed me for making a judgement from what I'd seen on TV.
> 
> [_/smugly vindicated_]


 Some people probably wanted to see the evidence, and didn't have access to your "Smarmy-ometer".


----------



## accountantpete (6 Feb 2012)

Right result wrong reason.


----------



## Crackle (6 Feb 2012)

It's a surprise but one everyone can claim a victory from, I'm kinda getting used to this in professional cycling. I wonder if Schleck and Scarponi will gain any satisfaction from it.


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2012)

Globalti said:


> [_smugly vindicated mode_]
> 
> I got flamed at the time for posting that I had lived in a Spanish hall of residence and taught English to lads like him and I didn't trust him, I said he was too smarmy for my liking. People flamed me for making a judgement from what I'd seen on TV.
> 
> [_/smugly vindicated_]


 What a lot of nonsense. He must be guilty because you didn't like some look-alikes and he looks smarmy on TV.

FWIW, it's a better result than I, and most of us, expected so I'll take some pleasure from this ruling.


----------



## raindog (6 Feb 2012)

Schleck and Scarponi may have been doped too, always supposing Berto _was _doped, in fact, they may have been _more _doped, but just got away with it.
Cynic, me?


----------



## bennydorano (6 Feb 2012)

I was reading on velonation there that the UCI have requested a fine of near €2.5m. Where would that be going?


----------



## Willo (6 Feb 2012)

The locals were quicker to arrive at the guilty verdict during the early stages of last year's TdF!!






Just so rubbish when the winner didn't get to enjoy the moment - am sure this doesn't feel like a victory to A Schleck


----------



## ohnovino (6 Feb 2012)

bennydorano said:


> I was reading on velonation there that the UCI have requested a fine of near €2.5m. Where would that be going?


Probably to pay the lawyers they've had to hire for the last 18 months.


----------



## totallyfixed (6 Feb 2012)

Good news at last but for me not good enough. If you continue to deny the charge and don't fess up including naming your sources then the ban should be life if you are subsequently found guilty. As others have pointed out two years isn't really two years, he has continued racing and being paid and if a team will take him because Saxo will have to dump him, what am I saying, of course a team will take him [Moviestar? Providing he doesn't sulk and retire] he will go for the Vuelta with huge support from the Spanish fans.
Pat McQuaid - "this is a sad day for our sport" says it all, what he should have said is "this is a great victory for our sport" and praised the work of anti doping agencies.


----------



## cyberknight (6 Feb 2012)

I suspect although Andy will be delighted secretly that he has finally got a TDF win he would rather have won it by the sweat off his back rather than the rulings of a court whatever the guilt or innocence of Contador.


----------



## Alun (6 Feb 2012)

Ironically Saxo have now won the 2010 TdF with Schleck as Bertie was riding for Astana at the time. Although perhaps understandably Schleck says he doesn't feel a sense of victory.


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

1712361 said:


> Perhaps there is a difference between the story which they are punishing and the probable truth which they know they cannot prove.


 
That's kind of my take on it too. A kind of paradox; a hard line approach was adopted to what could be proven (the presence of clenb) because of what was more possibly the cause (a transfusion) and couldn't be proven.

My gut feel is that if it wasn't for the transfusion possibility then Contador would have received a lesser sentence, if not walked.

But I find the CAS statement curious....



> "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."


 
So probably a contaminated food supplement.... but not meat? Poor Bertie, if only he'd picked the right food supplement, the one that CAS _would_ have believed


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Pat McQuaid - "this is a sad day for our sport" says it all, what he should have said is "this is a great victory for our sport" and praised the work of anti doping agencies.


 
I thought it a curious statement too. And just to show how black a day it is for them, they'll push for the £2.5m fine. That must really hurt them to do that. But then nothing McQuaid says should surprise me.


----------



## dragon72 (6 Feb 2012)

I don't really get it.
Okay, so he gets stripped of the title of the race he tested positive in. Good.
And he should serve a 2 year ban as a punishment. Also good.
But why is he also stripped of subsequent titles he won and tested negative in? 
I reckon if he didn't test positive in races he contested while still riding, then he's as clean in those races as the rest of the peloton.
Let the 2 years start today.


----------



## raindog (6 Feb 2012)

As we thought, it's a very hollow victory for Andy. What a stupid mess this whole thing is.

" If now I am declared overall winner of the 2010 Tour de France it will not make me happy. I battled with Contador in that race and I lost. My goal is to win the Tour de France in a sportive way, being the best of all competitors, not in court. If I succeed this year, I will consider it as my first Tour victory.”


----------



## Alun (6 Feb 2012)

dragon72 said:


> I don't really get it.
> Okay, so he gets stripped of the title of the race he tested positive in. Good.
> And he should serve a 2 year ban as a punishment. Also good.
> But why is he also stripped of subsequent titles he won and tested negative in?
> ...


It's a 2 year ban, it starts from Jan 2011 less the period already served (5 months odd).
I don't think many would agree to let him retain the Giro.
Following your logic why not allow him to keep all the stages where he has not tested positive?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (6 Feb 2012)

Right verdict, bizarrely baroque banning procedure...


----------



## Hont (6 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> That's kind of my take on it too. A kind of paradox; a hard line approach was adopted to what could be proven (the presence of clenb) because of what was more possibly the cause (a transfusion) and couldn't be proven.


 
That doesn't make any sense though, because they haven't proven he took contaminated supplements either. They don't have to. They could just as easily have said that the meat-case was unproven, the clenbuterol was there, so that's a ban, "it might have been a blood transfusion". I find it curious that they have hypothesized on a different source. But then without access to all the information they have had, it's only so much speculation and I doubt we will ever know the whole story.


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

You're right... it is an odd statement! That was my point!

It would have been much simpler if they'd said "it's there and we don't care how it got there". But they seem to suggest there's a need for there to be a reason.


----------



## dragon72 (6 Feb 2012)

Alun said:


> Following your logic why not allow him to keep all the stages where he has not tested positive?


 
Sure, why not? You should only be punished for what you're proven to have done. Besides, you can't win a race if you're DQ'd a stage.


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

It doesn't matter. Letter of the law, there's no lower limit. CAS didn't need to suggest a reason mattered.

Or am I missing your point?


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2012)

The left-field, late entry of contaminated supplements is a curious addition to the dog-ate-my-homework excuses. I wonder if Bertie's lawyers had suggested it as excuse no.2?


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2012)

They're probably slapping there heads right now as we type about it!

"doh!" (or whatever the Spanish equivalent is) "why didn't we think of that?"!


----------



## Erratic (6 Feb 2012)

What happens to all the prize money he won during this time? Is it taken off him/the team and riders he rode with?


----------



## Paulus (6 Feb 2012)

Erratic said:


> What happens to all the prize money he won during this time? Is it taken off him/the team and riders he rode with?


 
Valid point Erratic. Does Andy Shleck now get paid out as well for winning?


----------



## Noodley (6 Feb 2012)

And what about all the sponsorship and product endorsement payments?

Snivelling little cheat.


----------



## smokeysmoo (6 Feb 2012)

Bastardo Tramposo española


----------



## Ghost Donkey (7 Feb 2012)

dragon72 said:


> Sure, why not? You should only be punished for what you're proven to have done. Besides, you can't win a race if you're DQ'd a stage.


 
He tested positive on a rest day didn't he? With that logic he would keep his title


----------



## Paul_L (7 Feb 2012)

Saxo are in a bit of a state now aren't they?

Officially crowned winner of the 2010 TdF. But they then signed Beefy Bertie at the start of the 2011 season, during which he must have amassed a ton of UCI ranking points for them, presumably with a chance of losing them and their World Tour status?


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2012)

yello said:


> Blimey, I wasn't expecting that! I genuinely thought he'd walk!


I did too. Sort of an nothing judgement, though

I presume there's a clause in his contract with Saxo which says 'get banned for doping and you're sacked'. What intrigues me is whether they will enforce it.


----------



## rich p (7 Feb 2012)

Saxo wouldn't be worth their salt if they got rid of Bertie

Given that he'll be back in August and Bjarne is 60% behind any dopers, I think they'll stick with AC. The stoopid thing is that I'm pretty sure he'd win his fair share of the GTs on bread and water and may well do so. Nailed on for the Vuelta? Get your money on now!


----------



## Alun (7 Feb 2012)

CAS find the contaminated steak excuse as “equally unlikely” as the blood transfusion scenario.
If the contaminated steak is a “dog ate my homework” excuse, it doesn’t say much for the blood transfusion explanation that so many think was the cause.


----------



## yello (7 Feb 2012)

I don't follow that Alun.That is, I think I get what you're trying to say but it doesn't fall out logically from your words. You're assuming a parity (where none exists) between the CAS statement and the opinions of people that don't buy the contaminated meat theory.


----------



## Alun (7 Feb 2012)

What I'm trying to say is that I think many more people would believe the blood transfusion explanation than the contaminated steak excuse. CAS are saying that they are both equally rubbish!

I think the contaminated steak brought in by a friend etc etc is very unlikely, and would believe the blood transfusion explanation, if it wasn't for the difference in dates between the plasticisers being discovered and the clenbutamol being discovered ( or was that just inaccurate reporting).

I think CAS's hands may have been tied, because if they had given any weight to the unapproved plasticizer test, I think Contador could have had grounds to appeal to a Swiss Federal court on procedural error.


----------



## yello (7 Feb 2012)

Alun said:


> I think many more people would believe the blood transfusion explanation than the contaminated steak excuse.


 
I agree, both with your assessment AND that the transfusion is the more likely!



> CAS are saying that they are both equally rubbish!


 
True, they are.

The two are different statements though, no correlation between them. That is, just because CAS think both theories are unlikely, it's not inconsistent for someone to believe one theory over the other.



> I think CAS's hands may have been tied, because if they had given any weight to the unapproved plasticizer test, I think Contador could have had grounds to appeal to a Swiss Federal court on procedural error.


 
An interesting thought, I hadn't considered that. Maybe CAS couldn't give credence to the transfusion theory (despite what the individuals on the panel may have believed) for the reasons you give. They had to present a cast-iron judgement and suggesting transfusion allowed wiggle room.


----------



## SoloCyclist (7 Feb 2012)

I would just like to say that I really respect Andy Schleck's statement on being awarded the 2010 TdF. He is quoted as saying "I battled with Contador in that race and I lost"


----------



## totallyfixed (7 Feb 2012)

SoloCyclist said:


> I would just like to say that I really respect Andy Schleck's statement on being awarded the 2010 TdF. He is quoted as saying "I battled with Contador in that race and I lost"


The cynical side of me says because he was no different from Contador


----------



## ColinJ (7 Feb 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> The cynical side of me says because he was no different from Contador


Indeed! If I had come second in the TDF (or any other major sporting event) to someone who was later convicted of doping I would be very angry that I had been robbed of my rightful first place. (Assuming that I wasn't thinking _"There but for the Grace of God go I"_ ...)


----------



## SoloCyclist (7 Feb 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> The cynical side of me says because he was no different from Contador



I thought of that, but I like to think it is the sheer competitor in the man that he takes no joy in being awarded a race he never won. 

He didn't need to say anything. He must have known people would accuse him of what you just said, and he may have his own thoughts on the matter of Contador.


----------



## rich p (7 Feb 2012)

SoloCyclist said:


> I thought of that, but I like to think it is the sheer competitor in the man that he takes no joy in being awarded a race he never won.
> 
> He didn't need to say anything. He must have known people would accuse him of what you just said, and he may have his own thoughts on the matter of Contador.


I'm still waiting for a more plausible explanantion as to why AS gave Dr Fuentes 7,000 euros for so-called training advice


----------



## fossyant (8 Feb 2012)

Saxo Bank have binned Bertie.


----------



## Keith Oates (8 Feb 2012)

They had no choice really, but the door is wide open for him to return in August!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## raindog (8 Feb 2012)

The ultimate fanboy?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/professor-goes-on-hunger-strike-for-contador


----------



## SoloCyclist (8 Feb 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm still waiting for a more plausible explanantion as to why AS gave Dr Fuentes 7,000 euros for so-called training advice



Fair point. Had high hopes for the guy too. Ah well!


----------



## Noodley (8 Feb 2012)

I must say that after many years of eating pies that I am more than a little disappointed I have not found any containing performance-enhancing additives...and now to find out that Bertie's effort have been in vein  or not, obviously.


----------



## Keith Oates (11 Feb 2012)

Boonen has reportedly made this statement about this week's doping saga:

_"I haven't really paid too much attention to the soap operas surrounding Contador and Armstrong," he said. "It's been going on for a while and nobody actually really cares about it anymore. Every time you open your mouth about these cases you get a pile of shoot over your head. I like Alberto and I hope that everything turns out ok for him, but that's all I have to say about it."_

That just about sums up my feelings as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

