Contador fails drug test

[Noodley]

That was Alain Baxter, now training as a track cyclist with Craig McLean and, IIRC aiming to be a pilot at Paralympics, or something like that!

 

[yello]

It has to be strict liability otherwise you'll have lawyers like this talking hogwash, which is what it is, at what point must athlete's accept reponsibility.

A small point but the lawyers merely argued the rules, so don't blame them. In this case, the rules allowed for there to be no ban if the athlete could be shown to be genuinely at no fault. They managed - probably with the willing ears of the Spanish federation, imho - to successfully argue that case.

I can understand the frustration. I personally think the odds that Contador doped in some way or another are high... but I wouldn't bet my mother's life on it, or my mother-in-law's for that matter.

I think this case highlights that the dopers are still way ahead of the game. The rules, processes, etc need to catch up and - imho - getting tough and 'zero tolerance' is just desperation.

 

[uphillstruggler]

Just watched the last part of the track racing from the weekend. Great interview with wiggins after the team pursuit win, calling his week there a holiday and moaning about the contador questions.

You got to like that sort of attitude

Great stuff

 

[fozzy]

agree with yellow, lawyers are there to argue the point, there should always be discussion of these things. i remember the skier and remember thinking that he lost out on a technicality and that he was made to suffer for being a human being who felt under the weather, i think a mistake was made and hoped it would never be made again. also, i struggle to agree with the point of absolute responsibility of the athlete. i've asked before and it doesn't really depend on if you believe AC or not, but can you really expect an athlete who trains for six hours a day to source the meat/fish they eat, this would include knowing the import/export agreements of each country in the world, the relevant loop holes that exsist in all trades, the frequency of national, regional and local testing. the specific ways and means of selection of animal feed, including any growth hormones. the husbandry of each animal, the slaughter and storage thereof, the transportation and then prep of the food stuff? that just seems like a lot to ask one person to know, let alone verify six times a day.

 

[rich p]

Even I'm tiring of this debate!
The presence of clenbuterol in Bertie's blood was unexplanable by Bertie and his advisors apart from saying that they don't check every cow in Spain so it's theoretically possible it came from a cow.

They were unable to provide any evidence of clen in Spanish beef or any cases of anyone being infected by it in that way.

To my mind that is not a reasonable defence but then I'm not a lawyer.

The other thing is the presence of plasticisers. I'm not sure why this isn't being highlighted by the authorities.

 

[yello]

so it's theoretically possible it came from a cow.

In one I reckon. Theoretically possible... and nobody can prove it one way or the other. Benefit of the doubt to the accused. And, as I've intimated, imho the law has to work that way.

The other thing is the presence of plasticisers. I'm not sure why this isn't being highlighted by the authorities.

Simply because it's not an approved test. It may well be a valid test, perfectly sound scientifically, but at this point in time not officially approved (to the best of my understanding anyway). Plus - and a big plus when you consider the theoretical nature of the meat contamination defence - it doesn't actually prove transfusion took place. It only points to it. Again to the best of my understanding, nobody is claiming with 100% certainty that there is no other possible explanation for the presence of plasticisers. It's a test too soon as it were, consider it a shot across the bows even.

The more I think about this, the more I think the answer (to the doping question) is not just in testing. Wiggle room can be and will be exploited. I have no idea what the answer is (the blood passport is one direction despite its flaws, ironic to think Contador could have used it in his defence!) but I reckon it has to be approached from a number of different directions at the same time. We see testing alone can be farcical.

 

[Crackle]

From a reasoned perspective I agree with your view about testing Yello but and it's a big but, no one has the resources to conduct a police like forensic investigation so you have to take a much simpler approach and strict liability is flawed but simple and workable.

 

[rich p]

In one I reckon. Theoretically possible... and nobody can prove it one way or the other. Benefit of the doubt to the accused. And, as I've intimated, imho the law has to work that way.
.

The law does, I agree, but sporting liability never has. Most sports accept that the ruling body has jurisdiction over punishments with the riders and teams accepting and signing up to the rules. I agree that this case takes that understanding to the margins and may be the death knell.
Even in law though it's not always enough to come up with an implausible but infinitesimally small alternative possibility.

Gentlemen of the jury, it is up to you to decide whether the defendant has made a sufficiently persuasive case and believe he is telling the truth.... I've watched Perry Mason!

I thought that the plasticiser test had been accredited now but I may be wrong.

 

[yello]

When you're talking about peoples livelihoods etc, I'd guess sport's arbitration cannot consider itself above the law. That is to say, maybe any decision could be challenged in a court of 'real' law?? I don't know, really I don't.

As I type, I'm not sure of the status of the plasticiser test. I read differing opinions, none of them authoratative! At the time, I was under the impression it was new and not officially accepted... and so highly challengable... it's there on the CyclingNews forum if you want to research it... I can't, in all honesty, remember exactly. But suffice to say, and as you said rich, NOTHING was made of it in UCI's official reporting of the test positive - there must be a reason for that.

Strict liability is simple and workable, I agree. Maybe it's the right approach too. I sway on that very point tbh... sometimes I think 'ah sod it, hang the bastard!'

 

[rich p]

Strict liability is simple and workable, I agree. Maybe it's the right approach too. I sway on that very point tbh... sometimes I think 'ah sod it, hang the bastard!'

I admit that I interpret the rules to support my way of thinking! I want the cheating git to be punished.

I think the test, having just researched a bit, is still waiting so that's a non-starter at the moment.

Okay, as you were Bertie, carry on.

 

[Crackle]

I think we should do the FNRttC to Dieppe (is it) with placards and beat Bertie as he goes past and with another one saying "We're watching you Schlecky boy". Yello's already there, so he can bring the placards with him.

 

[NickM]

I want the cheating git to be punished.

In the hope that road racing will somehow transform itself from a spectacle back into a sport?

I've long since given up on that...

Now bowls - that's a sport.

 

[NickM]

After many years of cynicism since the Festina Affair*, I thought for a couple of seasons recently that a corner had been turned and that we were seeing the genuinely-best riders triumph. Now it seems that we're still being conned, and have probably always been conned, but it takes some small incompetence on the part of a team "doctor" or soigneur for it to come to light because we're in one of those phases when the teams are ahead of the testers.

I want to feel enthusiastic about road racing; it could be a thing of beauty. But I always end up feeling cheated






*bloody hell, it even sounds like a Tintin title - quite appropriately, really...

 

[rich p]

I understand your disillusionment Nick and share it to an extent. FWIW, I believe that despite a few recent cases the peloton is cleaner than it was. The racing has in general seemed cleaner and less predictable in the last couple of years. Wiggins being able to come 4th for instance and I believe him to be clean.

There is less omerta and more comment in the pro ranks these days. I don't believe it is or ever will be entirely clean though - I'm not that naive!

 

[BJH]

So we see a change in position by the UCI when it comes to this case.

The athlete has always been responsible for anything found in their body. The case of the medallist skier has been mentioned on these pages. He used a well known nasal spray that was bought over the counter. It turned out that the version sold in the US and Canada is different to that sold in the UK, in that it had a banned substance.

No argument was put forward against this defence.

But, the offence is absolute whatever the reason and with a banned substance found it was removed from the finishers and no medal.

Yes it's difficult to cover off every single thing going into the body, but others manage it. I would far rather see cases such as the one above ( no matter how distressing for that individual) as this ensures there is only a single rule and a single interpretation.

The UCI have just copped out. Long term, whatever there motivation they have made a poor decision for cycling and sport,