Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

northernneil

just as a side issue not a single professional cyclist has mentioned anything at all about this today on twitter:-

http://twitter.com/#!/list/cyclingweekl ... l-cyclists

shows how much it means to the pros

frenchfighter

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.

I think you have some issues. Talk about blowing things out of proportion or having a serious lean. Get over it and also be consistent.

You feel oh so strongly about the winner of the Tour de France testing positive (but you don't care about doping) - I suggest you start a thread berating all +ve TdF winners as you will be spoilt for choice.

rick_chasey

frenchfighter wrote:

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.

I think you have some issues. Talk about blowing things out of proportion or having a serious lean. Get over it and also be consistent.

You feel oh so strongly about the winner of the Tour de France testing positive (but you don't care about doping) - I suggest you start a thread berating all +ve TdF winners as you will be spoilt for choice.

I don't care about peopel doping. I care about people getting caught, and what they do when they do.

As the Tour winner, he caries responsibilities - one of which is to not test positive!

frenchfighter

Anyone with issues over 1 not 2 year ban I suggest you apply your anger consistently and see how many people served a full two years and who didn't.

frenchfighter

pedro118118 wrote:

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?

Again you post sense. Essentially yes the +ve was not clear cut (you cannot test +ve for EPO and say I got it from eating a chicken), and the amount doesn't indicate any performance benefit whatsoever, hence why the 1 yr ban is being given rather than the full 2.

frenchfighter

northernneil wrote:

just as a side issue not a single professional cyclist has mentioned anything at all about this today on twitter:-

http://twitter.com/#!/list/cyclingweekl ... l-cyclists

shows how much it means to the pros

I think you will find that people on this forum or better informed that even the majority of news sites. I am sure you cannot say that all pro cyclists are aware of this development. You could also say they are professional.

You will also find that Contador is widely liked and respected within the peloton and the managers/DS etc.

rick_chasey

So is it official Schleck won it?

Or are we going to get a "no winner" again?

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

So is it official Schleck won it?

Or are we going to get a "no winner" again?

Schleck says Bert won.

skavanagh.bikeradar

And that, Houston, is why we have got a problem.

RichN95.

northernneil wrote:

just as a side issue not a single professional cyclist has mentioned anything at all about this today on twitter:-

http://twitter.com/#!/list/cyclingweekl ... l-cyclists

shows how much it means to the pros

Most sports teams have Twitter guidelines these days. Sportsmen are wary of getting involved in controversy.

Even I have to be careful about what I tweet, due to being someone of minor importance in another sport and accountable for what I write.

Gazzaputt

frenchfighter wrote:

pedro118118 wrote:

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?

Again you post sense. Essentially yes the +ve was not clear cut (you cannot test +ve for EPO and say I got it from eating a chicken), and the amount doesn't indicate any performance benefit whatsoever, hence why the 1 yr ban is being given rather than the full 2.

Think you find the reason for a 1 year ban more to be the Spanish cycling red have bottled it and will leave to UCI or WADA to appeal to have the sentence increased.

Anyway I'm looking forward to the press conference tomorrow when Bertie announces his retirement as promised.

kildare

I am very disappointed in the verdict. I think there is a very plausible explanation for the fact he cheated consistent with only very low levels of clenbuterol being detected. He took clenbuterol early in the season while training for effects on muscle mass. He then 'donated' some of his blood and stored for use in the TDF. This autologous transfusion would benefit his performance and is backed up the apparent detection of plasticisers (from the bag the blood was stored in). The clenbuterol detected therefore dates back to earlier in the year and is found in low amounts as it is diluted. Ban the cheating SOB for life.

DaveyL

frenchfighter wrote:

Essentially yes the +ve was not clear cut (you cannot test +ve for EPO and say I got it from eating a chicken)

Bert did not provide any satisfactory evidence that it was ingested unknowingly.

frenchfighter wrote:

the amount doesn't indicate any performance benefit whatsoever

Irrelevant.

Back to you.

nickwill

I was in France at the time when Contador was gifted the Tour due to the disqualification of Rasmussen et al. L'Equpe was full of articles expressing doubts about Contador and hinting at all manner of rumours current at the time.
Sadly, if someone's performance appears to be too good to be true then it usually is.
Over the years Evans has been the subject of much criticism for his lack of flair. To me he has always been the epitome of a clean rider.
With regard to Contador , he tested positive. All cyclists know about the strict liability ruling and thus can have no complaints when given a mandatory 2 year ban for the offence. I will be disgusted if the UCI or WADA fail to appeal against the unwarranted leniancy shown to Contador. On a wider note, perhaps WADA should initiate a wide ranging enquiry into the doping record of Spanish sport. Spain seems to have been on a one nation crusade to blacken the image of cycling

dilemna

DaveyL

Nickwill wrote:

I was in France at the time when Contador was gifted the Tour due to the disqualification of Rasmussen et al. L'Equpe was full of articles expressing doubts about Contador and hinting at all manner of rumours current at the time.
Sadly, if someone's performance appears to be too good to be true then it usually is.

Yes. Contador and Rasmussen went up the Col d'Aubisque in 2007, faster than Armstrong ever did - as David Walsh pointed out.

WADA need to press for a two year ban, and probably think about trying to have Spain booted out of the IOC if their Fed continues to sandbag over dealing with these guys.

dilemna

I reckon Contadour should be stripped of the 2009 Tour title as well.

Does this mean that he has to repay prize money as well as returning the yellow jerseys and medals?

iainf72

Bert is kicking butt in his hotel room, showing everyone how to put the hurt on and sulk. In style.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE70 ... ws&rpc=401

dougzz

frenchfighter wrote:

pedro118118 wrote:

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?

Again you post sense. Essentially yes the +ve was not clear cut (you cannot test +ve for EPO and say I got it from eating a chicken), and the amount doesn't indicate any performance benefit whatsoever, hence why the 1 yr ban is being given rather than the full 2.

Not really, this is not the way the rules work. He tested positive for a substance that has no limit, so it was a clear cut positive, there's no doubt. He should have received an automatic 2 year ban, and he should have received this in a timely fashion. He then should have appealed against this giving his mitigating circumstances, if he believed there were any. This is just a series of special treatments for him, instead of an even application of the rules.

As to your comment that I changed to bold, of course you can claim your chicken was spiked, it'll be crap, but then so are quite a few other mitigating explanations.

iainf72

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Contadour should be stripped of the 2009 Tour title as well.

Does this mean that he has to repay prize money as well as returning the yellow jerseys and medals?

Why? He didn't test positive in that race.

Yes, if he's recieved the money, he'd have to give it back. But this is cycling so the chances he's got it are pretty slim.

Gazzaputt

iainf72 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Contadour should be stripped of the 2009 Tour title as well.

Does this mean that he has to repay prize money as well as returning the yellow jerseys and medals?

Why? He didn't test positive in that race.

Yes, if he's recieved the money, he'd have to give it back. But this is cycling so the chances he's got it are pretty slim.

Hopefully his teammates will still keep their bonus for the tour win. Isn't their fault he cheated.

iainf72

Gazzaputt wrote:

Hopefully his teammates will still keep their bonus for the tour win. Isn't their fault he cheated.

Quite right. I'm sure no one else on Astana was tooled up.

DaveyL

Bert was handed his first Tour due to a dodgy chicken.

rebs

Gazzaputt wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Contadour should be stripped of the 2009 Tour title as well.

Does this mean that he has to repay prize money as well as returning the yellow jerseys and medals?

Why? He didn't test positive in that race.

Yes, if he's recieved the money, he'd have to give it back. But this is cycling so the chances he's got it are pretty slim.

Hopefully his teammates will still keep their bonus for the tour win. Isn't their fault he cheated.

Might be better any money created from a drugged up win should be given back. More of a Tteam effort" to ensure you run a cleaner outfit. Don't see why anyone from benefit from a cheat.

dilemna

iainf72 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Contadour should be stripped of the 2009 Tour title as well.

Does this mean that he has to repay prize money as well as returning the yellow jerseys and medals?

Why? He didn't test positive in that race.

Yes, if he's recieved the money, he'd have to give it back. But this is cycling so the chances he's got it are pretty slim.

Was the test in 2009 for clenbuterol as sensitive as in 2010 and carried out by the same lab? If not, I have my suspicions.

rick_chasey

Gazzaputt wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Contadour should be stripped of the 2009 Tour title as well.

Does this mean that he has to repay prize money as well as returning the yellow jerseys and medals?

Why? He didn't test positive in that race.

Yes, if he's recieved the money, he'd have to give it back. But this is cycling so the chances he's got it are pretty slim.

Hopefully his teammates will still keep their bonus for the tour win. Isn't their fault he cheated.

Contador got the money. He gets billed. What he did with that money is irrelevant to who foots the bill.

Gazzaputt

rebs wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Contadour should be stripped of the 2009 Tour title as well.

Does this mean that he has to repay prize money as well as returning the yellow jerseys and medals?

Why? He didn't test positive in that race.

Yes, if he's recieved the money, he'd have to give it back. But this is cycling so the chances he's got it are pretty slim.

Hopefully his teammates will still keep their bonus for the tour win. Isn't their fault he cheated.

Might be better any money created from a drugged up win should be given back. More of a Tteam effort" to ensure you run a cleaner outfit. Don't see why anyone from benefit from a cheat.

I only say this after reading an interview by Koos Moerenhout who lost a whole load of cash because of Landis.

Some domestics rely on this money.

blazing_saddles

dilemna wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I reckon Contadour should be stripped of the 2009 Tour title as well.

Does this mean that he has to repay prize money as well as returning the yellow jerseys and medals?

Why? He didn't test positive in that race.

Yes, if he's recieved the money, he'd have to give it back. But this is cycling so the chances he's got it are pretty slim.

Was the test in 2009 for clenbuterol as sensitive as in 2010 and carried out by the same lab? If not, I have my suspicions.

Definitely not and no.
Having suspicions about a whole lot of suspicious folk is a dangerous thing around here.

cajun_cyclist

A real black eye for Cycling, what if and he probably will be, Lance is at the least indicted and Bertie is suspended going into the Tour in July, it's going to look bad for cycling with these sideshows going on.

---

For anyone who braves this weather to ride, I do like the winter garb these guys are wearing, Contador is well padded under his jersey, honestly. and wearing a scarf as well. Sidenote, had to throw that in.

Pokerface

cajun_cyclist wrote:

For anyone who braves this weather to ride, I do like the winter garb these guys are wearing, Contador is well padded under his jersey, honestly. and wearing a scarf as well. Sidenote, had to throw that in.

Ironic that you call it 'winter garb' considering they are in Majorca and it's fairly warm there!