Contador fails drug test
- Thread starter Flying_Monkey
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
gb155
Fan Boy No More.
- Location
- Manchester-Ish
Lance, The rest all got DQ'ed
Hurrah
Hurrah
No I hadn't. It's a very firm line stance and perhaps rightly. Perhaps there ought be a 'no prisoners' approach.
I struggle sometimes with definitive statements because you know full well that decisions based on the letter of the law are wrong sometimes. I like there to be interpretation, wiggle room if you like. It is entirely possible for a substance to be in the body and you have no idea how it got there. Why should you? There's a presumption of guilt and that always makes me nervous. I do appreciate the need for a line to be drawn somewhere and accept that that can mean injustices. I guess I'm undecided which is the lesser of the two wrongs here; innocent jailed or guilty free.
Re the science of it, I found this surprising...
I don't doubt low levels do reduce side effects but I have read elsewhere the opinion of others that such low levels serve no PE purpose either! But who knows? Perhaps Contador did micro-dose. Blimey, I don't know! I can only take on trust the informed opinion of others!
I do think the author is right to point out the inconsistencies in the application of the regulations, and the potential for favouritism...
but I equally feel that an individual shouldn't be punished for the faults of the system. The fault for the difference in application here is to do with UCI and not Contador. Just WHY UCI handled it the way it did, I have no idea. It's a subject for much conjecture! Personally, I can find a little leniency with UCI (which goes against the grain for me!!). I think it possible that they were trying to do the right thing.
I personally think that a dangerous statement to make. As I said, I think the author is right to point to the inconsistencies and the possible conflicts of interest but to deny Contador a right to defend himself because of that is scapegoating him. So I think there are two issues here that author bundles together; Contador's guilt or innocence, and the inconsistencies of the system. Just because Contador is the Spanish cycling federation's favourite son, and may have been UCI's pin up boy in waiting, that doesn't make him guilty either. You can't blame him for them treating him differently.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/freire-calls-for-life-ban-for-ricco
This could go in either this one or the Ricco thread!
Oscar Freire saying he's not sure if he believes Contador is a much more damning statement than meets the eye, in my opinion. For a fellow rider, and a fellow Spaniard at that, and one who is probably privy to cycling's dark heart it's an unusual step.
This could go in either this one or the Ricco thread!
Oscar Freire saying he's not sure if he believes Contador is a much more damning statement than meets the eye, in my opinion. For a fellow rider, and a fellow Spaniard at that, and one who is probably privy to cycling's dark heart it's an unusual step.
gb155
Fan Boy No More.
- Location
- Manchester-Ish
I agree, I suspect this one will run and run for some time yet
OP
OP
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
Spanish cyclists always have extenuating circumstances, it seems.
mangaman
Guest
Nice article by Friere - a brilliant cyclist who seems to have a few principles!
I don't think the Spanish federation can clear Contador? Surely it will be challenged by WADA et al.
I think the comment from the Canadian scientist, that any clembuterol at all is not right, is important.
I also agree that the tiny doses found, would have made the fact that they varied day-to-day irrelevant.
I'd be amazed if that wasn't within the limits of randomness at such small doses.
Of course, the doses were small, but consistantly there. Bertie may slip out of this, but IMHO he was found with a banned substance in his blood on several occasions and should receive the normal 2 year ban. He's broken the rules and should be punished (unless I'm missing something?)
I really can't see why anyone would argue against that - unless they were pro-doping.
I don't think the Spanish federation can clear Contador? Surely it will be challenged by WADA et al.
I think the comment from the Canadian scientist, that any clembuterol at all is not right, is important.
I also agree that the tiny doses found, would have made the fact that they varied day-to-day irrelevant.
I'd be amazed if that wasn't within the limits of randomness at such small doses.
Of course, the doses were small, but consistantly there. Bertie may slip out of this, but IMHO he was found with a banned substance in his blood on several occasions and should receive the normal 2 year ban. He's broken the rules and should be punished (unless I'm missing something?)
I really can't see why anyone would argue against that - unless they were pro-doping.
Mangaman, the point is that if the Spanish Fed believe he ingested it accidentally from the tainted meat they can, according to Bertie's reading of the UCI rules, exonerate him.
However, he appealed that decision, and cited an article of the International Cycling Union's (UCI) doping regulations which says that a suspension can be eliminated if the rider has no fault or negligence.
This goes against the strict-liability rules where you are responsible for any illegal product in your system.
The Spanish Fed now find themselves 'swayed' by Meatgate a week after pronouncing him guilty and provisionally banning him for a year. Can anyone explain to me what the f*** they have been investigating for 2 months and what was the ban provisional upon?
Even Bertie admitted the clenbuterol was present, so the only investigation was how it got there. Have they only just realised a week after their investigations were ended that the tainted meat story was persuasive? It was a year's ban dependant on whether Bertie said I'm innocent or not.
I wonder if the Spanish Fed are simply scared of costly civil litigation in Spain and would rather the tough decision and expense was taken on by WADA or the UCI at CAS.
However, he appealed that decision, and cited an article of the International Cycling Union's (UCI) doping regulations which says that a suspension can be eliminated if the rider has no fault or negligence.
This goes against the strict-liability rules where you are responsible for any illegal product in your system.
The Spanish Fed now find themselves 'swayed' by Meatgate a week after pronouncing him guilty and provisionally banning him for a year. Can anyone explain to me what the f*** they have been investigating for 2 months and what was the ban provisional upon?
Even Bertie admitted the clenbuterol was present, so the only investigation was how it got there. Have they only just realised a week after their investigations were ended that the tainted meat story was persuasive? It was a year's ban dependant on whether Bertie said I'm innocent or not.
I wonder if the Spanish Fed are simply scared of costly civil litigation in Spain and would rather the tough decision and expense was taken on by WADA or the UCI at CAS.
Somewhat bizarrely, my reading (on as.com) suggests that UCI might not refer to CAS! That is, they seem to accept the meat contamination as the most likely source of the clenb! This gets weirder!!
roughly translated 'UCI conclude in it's own files that the only explanation to the positive is the poisoning'
I don't think it's necessarily that people accept the meat contamination theory as fact (Contador's defence would only suggest it as a possibility) but that it has introduced sufficient doubt and suggests a theoretical alternative explanation as to the presence of clenb. We'd have to see what Contador submitted in the 10 days since the Spanish Federation suggested a year ban, and now seemingly clearing Contador, for us to know why (officially) they changed their minds.
I dunno, I reckon there's something decidedly 'behind the scenes' going on here. Maybe UCI feel CAS would chuck the case out anyway, because UCI didn't follow procedure in reporting the positive in the first place. Who knows? I suspect we'll only ever have conjecture.
Edit: full link, because the embed hasn't worked... again!!!
http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/defensa-incidio-alegacion-ausencia-culpa/20110215dasdaicic_2/Tes
roughly translated 'UCI conclude in it's own files that the only explanation to the positive is the poisoning'
I don't think it's necessarily that people accept the meat contamination theory as fact (Contador's defence would only suggest it as a possibility) but that it has introduced sufficient doubt and suggests a theoretical alternative explanation as to the presence of clenb. We'd have to see what Contador submitted in the 10 days since the Spanish Federation suggested a year ban, and now seemingly clearing Contador, for us to know why (officially) they changed their minds.
I dunno, I reckon there's something decidedly 'behind the scenes' going on here. Maybe UCI feel CAS would chuck the case out anyway, because UCI didn't follow procedure in reporting the positive in the first place. Who knows? I suspect we'll only ever have conjecture.
Edit: full link, because the embed hasn't worked... again!!!
http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/defensa-incidio-alegacion-ausencia-culpa/20110215dasdaicic_2/Tes
One wonders how thety managed to get a photo of Bertie getting off the throne after providing a stool sample - smells fishy to me
That's because he still needs the protein while staying clear of beef.
Maybe UCI did cock it up?
http://www.velonatio...ng-charges.aspx
Basically, UCI wrote to the Spanish Federation advising them of the charges ... but didn't write to Contador or his legal people. This apparently is a violation of his rights. So he MIGHT have wiggled out on a error in due process. It'd certainly explain any reluctance on UCI's part to appeal it.
I did think this would end up with Contador breathing one helluva sigh of relief, some technicality being exploited, but I wouldn't quite have predicted that he'd walk for price of a postage stamp!
http://www.velonatio...ng-charges.aspx
Basically, UCI wrote to the Spanish Federation advising them of the charges ... but didn't write to Contador or his legal people. This apparently is a violation of his rights. So he MIGHT have wiggled out on a error in due process. It'd certainly explain any reluctance on UCI's part to appeal it.
I did think this would end up with Contador breathing one helluva sigh of relief, some technicality being exploited, but I wouldn't quite have predicted that he'd walk for price of a postage stamp!
