Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

dave_1

I see velolibel and a few others are running stories with anonymous Astana people the source. I think if Contador's lawyers go after these media then we can take it he thinks he's on more solid ground than we think is currently the case???

dennisn

OK, a couple of serious and possibly stupid questions.
In the end, I'm assuming, it's the taxpayer that pays for all this WADA stuff, testing and storage facilities. Am I wrong?
If true, is this really how the average taxpayer wants his / her money spent?
I would bet that most people, upon finding out how much of their money goes to chasing doping athletes, would reply with something like "screw them all, let them inject themselves till they explode and quit spending good money on bad people".
Maybe??? :? :? :?

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

If true, is this really how the average taxpayer wants his / her money spent?
I would bet that most people, upon finding out how much of their money goes to chasing doping athletes, would reply with something like "screw them all, let them inject themselves till they explode and quit spending good money on bad people".
Maybe??? :? :? :?

WADA is funded by sporting bodies from around the world. Like the IOC etc.

Governments like something to focus national pride on, and sport is a good way to achieve that. It's in everyones interest that sport is as fair as possible, so I think when the general tax payer looked at the bigger picture, they'd agree it was a worthy spend. (I exclude anyone who reads the Daily Mail, watches Fox News or is a member of the "tax payers alliance" from this)

SpaceJunk

dennisn wrote:

OK, a couple of serious and possibly stupid questions.
In the end, I'm assuming, it's the taxpayer that pays for all this WADA stuff, testing and storage facilities. Am I wrong?
If true, is this really how the average taxpayer wants his / her money spent?
I would bet that most people, upon finding out how much of their money goes to chasing doping athletes, would reply with something like "screw them all, let them inject themselves till they explode and quit spending good money on bad people".
Maybe??? :? :? :?

They are interesting questions. Little experience I had today:

In today's paper (Saturday), they had a magazine style lift out with LA on the front cover.

I had the in-laws over today (not invited :roll:), anyway when they saw the front cover their reaction was "who cares, they are all of drugs, what a waste of money etc".

They aren't cycling supporters by any means, and I think a lot of people will feel that way.

Cycling fans on the other hand, probably want justice at all costs - we've been hoodwinked enough.

But with cycling fans being in the minority, just how much "community pressure" could the likes of my "in-laws" exert?

Very interesting questions.

andyp

Dave_1 wrote:

I see velolibel and a few others are running stories with anonymous Astana people the source. I think if Contador's lawyers go after these media then we can take it he thinks he's on more solid ground than we think is currently the case???

Contador obviously learnt something during his contract negotiations with Patrick Leferve.

dennisn

SpaceJunk wrote:

dennisn wrote:

OK, a couple of serious and possibly stupid questions.
In the end, I'm assuming, it's the taxpayer that pays for all this WADA stuff, testing and storage facilities. Am I wrong?
If true, is this really how the average taxpayer wants his / her money spent?
I would bet that most people, upon finding out how much of their money goes to chasing doping athletes, would reply with something like "screw them all, let them inject themselves till they explode and quit spending good money on bad people".
Maybe??? :? :? :?

They are interesting questions. Little experience I had today:

In today's paper (Saturday), they had a magazine style lift out with LA on the front cover.

I had the in-laws over today (not invited :roll:), anyway when they saw the front cover their reaction was "who cares, they are all of drugs, what a waste of money etc".

They aren't cycling supporters by any means, and I think a lot of people will feel that way.

Cycling fans on the other hand, probably want justice at all costs - we've been hoodwinked enough.

But with cycling fans being in the minority, just how much "community pressure" could the likes of my "in-laws" exert?

Well, sooner or later a politician or two or three is probably going to agree with your in- laws and funding for sports in general may get their share of the axe, just like everything else when money gets tight.

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

I see velolibel and a few others are running stories with anonymous Astana people the source. I think if Contador's lawyers go after these media then we can take it he thinks he's on more solid ground than we think is currently the case???

Not really, no. He's got money and lawyers, the threat of a libel case, where you'd have to reveal sources (and trust them to be able to prove their story) is often enough to shut up a publication.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

Well, sooner or later a politician or two or three is probably going to agree with your in- laws and funding for sports in general may get their share of the axe, just like everything else when money gets tight.

It's already being cut in lots of countries.

But it would never be completely removed. Not even the Tories are stupid enough to do that.

inkyfingers

Hopefully the fact that a third of the country waddle rather than walk will help to keep the value of sport at the forefront of the governrments mind.

ratsbeyfus

An Italian who tested positive for Clem' has just got a 1 year ban. He had 4x Contodour's level. The authorities bought his argument that it was ingested unwillingly as the guy was in Mexico at the time and apparently the meat there is v. dodge. Ban reduced from I guess 2 to 1 year.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5957/Italian-rider-Colo-given-a-reduced-ban-for-Clenbuterol-positive.aspx

So:
- the dodgy meat excuse isn't new;
- it is under some circumstances accepted as an excuse;
- you still get a ban - just not a full length one.

So FF, does all that cheer you up?

ms_tree

psittacosis wrote:

that is a counsel of despair, saying you cannot stop cheating so let them get on with it.
If the punishment was rigorous enough the cheating would stop.
The testers are clearly catching up with the cheats, no reason to back off now. Get high profile dirty riders and make examples of them.
Maybe a lifetime ban would be hard to get but a 10 year ban would be the same, i.e the end of a pro career.

I agree with Dennis ; it's not council of despair it's being realistic.
Many years ago I did Shaw's 'Major Barbara' for O level and there was a quote in there that has stayed with me always: Someone can give up (in this case the character is an arms dealer) but there is always someone waiting to take their place. So life bans wouldn't work looks at trying to ban smoking. Banning smoking in places hasn't stopped it has it, it seems more and more people are doing it and you just have to run the gauntlet of smoke outside instead - it's all relative.

ratsbeyfus

Ms Tree wrote:

psittacosis wrote:

that is a counsel of despair, saying you cannot stop cheating so let them get on with it.
If the punishment was rigorous enough the cheating would stop.
The testers are clearly catching up with the cheats, no reason to back off now. Get high profile dirty riders and make examples of them.
Maybe a lifetime ban would be hard to get but a 10 year ban would be the same, i.e the end of a pro career.

I agree with Dennis ; it's not council of despair it's being realistic.
Many years ago I did Shaw's 'Major Barbara' for O level and there was a quote in there that has stayed with me always: Someone can give up (in this case the character is an arms dealer) but there is always someone waiting to take their place. So life bans wouldn't work looks at trying to ban smoking. Banning smoking in places hasn't stopped it has it, it seems more and more people are doing it and you just have to run the gauntlet of smoke outside instead - it's all relative.

Read all about it! Smoking ban saves 40,000 lives!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/smoking-ban-has-saved-40000-lives-856885.html

Pokerface

Well - if Contador sues the publication that is publishing the interview with the unnamed Astana source that claims he withdrew blood and used clen after the Dauphine - it may force the publication to put up or shut up.

While they may not have to publicly name their source - they may have to prove the allegations are real - and we (the public) would know if the story is true or not. They would have to pay damages and print a retraction, etc if the story was false.

itisaboutthebike

Hopefully the fact that a third of the country waddle rather than walk

Nay lad - more like half when I walk around where I live.......................

itisaboutthebike

Read all about it! Smoking ban saves 40,000 lives!

Well it didn't save me mums life ! She chuffed away for 55 years until she was 69 - and amazingly lasted another 10 years.

But it looks like its worked for me dad...............he quit his pipe 20 years ago and is still going strong (well a bit dodery) at 83.

Best thing labour ever did. Everything else they did was a waste of space.

Make mine a woodbine !

sherer

Pokerface wrote:

Well - if Contador sues the publication that is publishing the interview with the unnamed Astana source that claims he withdrew blood and used clen after the Dauphine - it may force the publication to put up or shut up.

While they may not have to publicly name their source - they may have to prove the allegations are real - and we (the public) would know if the story is true or not. They would have to pay damages and print a retraction, etc if the story was false.

Someone over on the CN Formus claimed this was a satirical magazine and this was all made up, not sure how true that is

Pokerface

sherer wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Well - if Contador sues the publication that is publishing the interview with the unnamed Astana source that claims he withdrew blood and used clen after the Dauphine - it may force the publication to put up or shut up.

While they may not have to publicly name their source - they may have to prove the allegations are real - and we (the public) would know if the story is true or not. They would have to pay damages and print a retraction, etc if the story was false.

Someone over on the CN Formus claimed this was a satirical magazine and this was all made up, not sure how true that is

If this is the case - I'm surprised more people (magazines/publications/websites) are not reporting it as such.

sherer

i'll check the thread again tomorrow, off out for beers soon

No_Ta_Doctor

itisaboutthebike wrote:

Best thing labour ever did. Everything else they did was a waste of space.

Bastards weren't even any good at not being the Tories.

dulldave

Ms Tree wrote:

Banning smoking in places hasn't stopped it has it, it seems more and more people are doing it and you just have to run the gauntlet of smoke outside instead - it's all relative.

Smoking is banned in public places and has pretty much wiped out smoking in most public places. So as a comparison it doesn't really work.

Also you're arguing that smoking in public places hasn't stopped people smoking but the law was created to minimise passive smoking.

ratsbeyfus

Interesting article in Cycling weekly. Seems the plastisizer test used by the german lab is different from the Spanish one, and hasn't been published in a Science-Jazz-Mag so may not be as robust/admissable. The article suggests the UCI will publish its findings next week. Also reports that Spanish meat people deny that their cows are junkies.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/502584/tension-rises-over-contador-s-clenbuterol-case.html

frenchfighter

Humo time. Who will be first with the text of this.

iainf72

Seems like Bert thinks his goose may be well cooked.

He's talking about quitting even if he is cleared.

Kléber

He's already a millionaire. Maybe he just doesn't like cycling that much?

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

He's already a millionaire. Maybe he just doesn't like cycling that much?

Indeed. If I was in his position, I'd be thinking about bailing out.

Kléber

The trouble is that his name is mud. His entire career has been spent on the most dodgy of teams (Liberty, Astana, Discovery and potentially with Mr 60%) and now few are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he's slapped with a ban then he'll be stripped of the win and he'll always be named alongside Landis and others who won the Tour, only to get the title removed.

So yes you can see why he might just ride off into the sunset.

rick_chasey

It's a shame if he does.

Assuming Andy Schleck avoids any positives it'll be a massive period of 1 man Tour domination again.

iainf72

And if he doesn't get a ban, with the new tests coming along and team mates being prepared gob in the gazpacho he must realise the game is up.

So you come back, take the risk, get found out. Or come back, don't take the risk and suddenly can't TT or climb that well and are found out that way.

bazbadger

iainf72 wrote:

And if he doesn't get a ban, with the new tests coming along and team mates being prepared gob in the gazpacho he must realise the game is up.

So you come back, take the risk, get found out. Or come back, don't take the risk and suddenly can't TT or climb that well and are found out that way.

Quite possibly no win.

PS. like the footnote, though can't think who on earth you're referring to.

sherer

iainf72 wrote:

And if he doesn't get a ban, with the new tests coming along and team mates being prepared gob in the gazpacho he must realise the game is up.

So you come back, take the risk, get found out. Or come back, don't take the risk and suddenly can't TT or climb that well and are found out that way.

Well Vino and Basso have come back with a lot of success just depends on whether you think they are clean or not.

Have there been some new quotes from Contador today then ? I read the quit ones last week but the above says he may quit even if proved innocent.

The problem with handing the title over to Schleck is that without all the tests done on him we won't really know if he is clean, although we could use the same arguement all the way through the top 20 or more