Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

Homer J

Another sad day for the sport. I for one do not want to see a drug cheat return and start winning again, just don't sit right.

blazing_saddles

A lot of debate about whether a one year ban is long enough.
Most appear to favour the no quibble standard 2 year number.
I think the one year might just be right, if not for Contador himself,
but for any unfortunate soul who might just get a minuscule Clen positive from contamination in the future and be unable to prove their link.


Anyhow..............Does a one year ban really have to mean one year?

The commencing date of the ban is crucial. I have read elsewhere that the ban will be registered from August 24th.
In which case, he would be forced to miss the Vuelta which starts on August 20th.
Were that to happen, Berto would be off the bike from the end of July, 2010, until March, 2012.
So, a one year ban would actually mean 19 months in the sin bin.

rick_chasey

Blazing Saddles wrote:

A lot of debate about whether a one year ban is long enough.
Most appear to favour the no quibble standard 2 year number.
I think the one year might just be right, if not for Contador himself,
but for any unfortunate soul who might just get a minuscule Clen positive from contamination in the future and be unable to prove their link.


Anyhow..............Does a one year ban really have to mean one year?

The commencing date of the ban is crucial. I have read elsewhere that the ban will be registered from August 24th.
In which case, he would be forced to miss the Vuelta which starts on August 20th.
Were that to happen, Berto would be off the bike from the end of July, 2010, until March, 2012.
So, a one year ban would actually mean 19 months in the sin bin.

The issue is - you don't want see a guy who brings the whole Tour into disrepute (again) racing it immediately afterwards.

I'm likely to be in the minority, but you should punish those who have a bigger impact harder. It's tough at the top, and they should be punished accordingly.

I also doubt that clent was the only illegal stuff he was using as well.

Pokerface

I guess it depends if you still buy into the whole fantasy that he took it 'accidentally'.

rick_chasey

Pokerface wrote:

I guess it depends if you still buy into the whole fantasy that he took it 'accidentally'.

Ah I don't care. You get caught having won the Tour? Tough. Should have paid more attention.

Keeping control of what enters your body and what doesn't is part of the remit for a professional cyclist.

Plenty of others seem to manage OK every year.

Pokerface

One article I read seemed to say that this one year ban has been presented to him as 'a proposal'? Seems a little odd that they would ask him what he thinks about it rather than just DO IT!

We'll find out what he has to say abut it on Friday:

“Therefore, together with Bjarne Riis (director of his team Saxo Bank), a Press Conference will be held next Friday, January 28, at 16:00 hours (1500GMT), at the Hotel Son Net in Palma de Mallorca, to express their opinion about this case.”

mroli

frenchfighter wrote:

Please explain how taking a banned substance accidentally should mean you get a ban?

Because otherwise everyone when they got caught for doping would say "it was an accident". Look at Alain Baxter. He took a product in Canada that he knew was ok to take in the UK, but the Canadian version contained trace levels of a product that was banned. His excuse was accepted (and it was agreed that there was no doping intent), but he still got 3 months and lost his medal.

If Contador gets a year, it will be because his case is considered strong enough to warrant a shorter ban than normal, but imho it has been weakened by the fact that he hasn't got any proof to help him prove his case.

I think a lot of people are rubbing their hand in glee that another high profile cyclist has been caught (and that they can have a pop at you!), but unlike you, I think it is sad that convicted, unrepentant dopers come back into the sport and "put the hurt" on clean cyclists.

Yellow Peril

Perhaps the answer to all of this is far more fundamental albeit somewhat dystopian. All teams are selected and tested with results analysed in the week before the tour. All riders are then removed from their teams and entourage and are looked after, fed, housed by neutral service. All musettes are prepared by neutral service and the only contact riders have with their entourage is via race radio and mechanical support. On top of that they are all tested before and after the race each day. It would be interesting to see if anyone could still fail a test during 'Tour prison'

frenchfighter

mroli wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Please explain how taking a banned substance accidentally should mean you get a ban?

Because otherwise everyone when they got caught for doping would say "it was an accident". Look at Alain Baxter. He took a product in Canada that he knew was ok to take in the UK, but the Canadian version contained trace levels of a product that was banned. His excuse was accepted (and it was agreed that there was no doping intent), but he still got 3 months and lost his medal.

If Contador gets a year, it will be because his case is considered strong enough to warrant a shorter ban than normal, but imho it has been weakened by the fact that he hasn't got any proof to help him prove his case.

I think a lot of people are rubbing their hand in glee that another high profile cyclist has been caught (and that they can have a pop at you!), but unlike you, I think it is sad that convicted, unrepentant dopers come back into the sport and "put the hurt" on clean cyclists.

Fair post. For your last comment I must clarify my stance: Basso and others have talent, excellent talent, regardless of whether they took drugs, which is why they can come back and still be at the top level. I feel the same is true for Contador, but in his case I don't think he doped. With regard to 'unrepentant' dopers, I am not a fan of that attitude - some tests are clear cut and those people should definitely be contrite (Basso was, Di Luca has said some things at a speaking event, Ricco appears to be coming round even if he had a bad attitude before, Vino has been somewhat contrite, Millar certainly has etc). Also I don't like dopers more than the next person.

simon_e

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I think the one year might just be right, if not for Contador himself,
but for any unfortunate soul who might just get a minuscule Clen positive from contamination in the future and be unable to prove their link.

And just how many foods are likely to contain clenbuterol?

I don't buy the idea that it was accidental in this case. He has not produced any defence other than the implausible and widely discredited 'tainted beef'. No mention of potions or lotions that may have slipped under the radar. Supplement manufacturers should be checking their products anyway, and if they're not they shouldn't be supplying athletes (or the public).

We've had enough riders defend their actions by trying the accidental ingestion line it's not credible any more. It should be unambiguous: if you are caught doping you're banned.

blazing_saddles

I think the way in which Cologne was used for targeted testing needs to be re-thought.
If only a small number of samples can go there, make them be for the top 10 on the final rest day.
Nab one, nab all............or none, whatever the outcome. Otherwise they are simply adding another tier to the doping lottery.
Of course, we all know that the UCI would shudder at the potential outcome.

Look at the first Tour after the dust of OP had settled.
We had Astana and Cofidis packing their bags, in disgrace.
Rasmussen winning the mountains battle, only to finally lose yellow to mounting pressure and a lot of dithering.
It handed the TDF title, on a plate, to a now convicted doper.

Who's to say history isn't in the process of repeating itself?
It would be nice to know for sure that the honour was being held by a clean pair of hands.

Still, I suppose this remains the conundrum we agonize over, year in year out.

DaveyL

frenchfighter wrote:

Also I don't like dopers more than the next person.

frenchfighter wrote:

I don't care that Pantani was doped.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I think the way in which Cologne was used for targeted testing needs to be re-thought.
If only a small number of samples can go there, make them be for the top 10 on the final rest day.

We don't know who's samples got sent to Cologne. Perhaps they did more or less what you said

inseine

With regard to 'unrepentant' dopers, I am not a fan of that attitude

But Contador isn't repentant, he just denies it. Everyone says they're innocent, at least at first.

airwise

Life bans for the lot of them.

No second chance.

Cheat and lose you career.

One year is an insult - the guy has most probably been dirty since the Liberty days.

bazbadger

DaveyL wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Also I don't like dopers more than the next person.

frenchfighter wrote:

I don't care that Pantani was doped.

nice one.

iainf72

airwise wrote:

Life bans for the lot of them.

No second chance.

Get caught and lose you career.

Fixed that for you.

fleshtuxedo

Apologies if it'd in here already and I've missed it, but has it been accepted that the clen was ingested accidentally?

Otherwise, I don't get whty it's only 1 year.

rick_chasey

FleshTuxedo wrote:

Apologies if it'd in here already and I've missed it, but has it been accepted that the clen was ingested accidentally?

Otherwise, I don't get whty it's only 1 year.

They're taking his word for it it would seem.

"We can't prove he did it deliberately"

As opposed to

"he can't prove he did it accidentally"

He's certainly got some friends in high places.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

airwise wrote:

Life bans for the lot of them.

No second chance.

Get caught and lose you career.

Fixed that for you.

I like how cheating only refers to PEDs, rather than, say, holding on to a car or motorbike on your way to the top of the tourmalet...

fleshtuxedo

Rick Chasey wrote:

FleshTuxedo wrote:

Apologies if it'd in here already and I've missed it, but has it been accepted that the clen was ingested accidentally?

Otherwise, I don't get whty it's only 1 year.

They're taking his word for it it would seem.

"We can't prove he did it deliberately"

As opposed to

"he can't prove he did it accidentally"

He's certainly got some friends in high places.

Thanks. A lenient approach, I agree.

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

I like how cheating only refers to PEDs, rather than, say, holding on to a car or motorbike on your way to the top of the tourmalet...

Shhhhhh.

Don't talk about that

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I like how cheating only refers to PEDs, rather than, say, holding on to a car or motorbike on your way to the top of the tourmalet...

I doubt that really happens in the big races anymore, beyond the standard bottle trick. Most of the crowd have cameras on their phones and access to YouTube these days - they'd get caught pretty easily.

(And if they're clean riders trying to make a time limit set by a doper, I'm willing to give them a break).

redddraggon

frenchfighter wrote:

I feel the same is true for Contador, but in his case I don't think he doped.

What about the plasticisers?

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I like how cheating only refers to PEDs, rather than, say, holding on to a car or motorbike on your way to the top of the tourmalet...

I doubt that really happens in the big races anymore, beyond the standard bottle trick. Most of the crowd have cameras on their phones and access to YouTube these days - they'd get caught pretty easily.

(And if they're clean riders trying to make a time limit set by a doper, I'm willing to give them a break).

Probably a lot less although issue in question was Cavendish. Fignon mentioned it and made a deal of it, rightly so.

pedro118118

105 pages dedicated to debating what?
He is guilty of testing positive for a banned substance. His guilt has never been in question. The question is whether there are mitigating circumstances or an 'explanation'. Clearly the 'powers that be' have decided that there are mitigating circumstances (the meat defence) in the context of the very small levels detected and have downgrated the standard 2-year sanction accordingly.
Looking at the case in isolation (ie disregarding the widely-held view that he's 'been at it for ages'), it seems like a sensible outcome to me?

rick_chasey

pedro118118 wrote:

it seems like a sensible outcome to me?

it's not sensible because Contador has proven f*ck all.

What he did is literally the worst thing that can happen for professional cycling beyond death or serious injury, and then he gets a truncated sentance?

I was always quite comfortable with the standard nepostism and corruption in cycling but this massively takes the p!ss.

northernneil

Rick Chasey wrote:

pedro118118 wrote:

it seems like a sensible outcome to me?

it's not sensible because Contador has proven f*ck all.

What he did is literally the worst thing that can happen for professional cycling beyond death or serious injury, and then he gets a truncated sentance?

I was always quite comfortable with the standard nepostism and corruption in cycling but this massively takes the p!ss.

what he said

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

I was always quite comfortable with the standard nepostism and corruption in cycling but this massively takes the p!ss.

You've clearly not factored his smoldering latin boy looks into the equation....
]

bipedal

frenchfighter wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

RFEC accepted Contador's explanation for accidental ingestion of clenbuterol


And you still get a ban? Ok, all the other cyclists are looking at this and thinking wtf. This further proves the point that certain fat twats are being apeased.

Have you heard of something called WADA and the concept of "strict liability"?

It's got nothing to do with McQuaid or the UCI.

The tinfoil hat brigade on both sides are certainly out in force.

Please explain how taking a banned substance accidentally should mean you get a ban?

Your question demonstrates that you don't understand what "strict liability" means... it doesn't matter how it gets there, if it's found, you're cooked, end of. It's simple and straightforward and relies on athletes being professional about what they consume.