Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

DaveyL

Maybe he can write a book, like Floyd did.

"Stylishly Positive".

Or is it "Positively Stylish".

cajun_cyclist

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

They are wearing winter clothing, the wrap around the ears though I would agree the weather is surely not that severe as if one were traveling on truly icy roads and the like.

If in Winter, it has to be like this, then maybe they are not wearing winter clothing.

dilemna

DaveyL wrote:

Maybe he can write a book, like Floyd did.

"Stylishly Positive".

Or is it "Positively Stylish".

Staying Positive

dilemna

Gazzaputt wrote:

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.

If Contadour were stripped of the 2009 Tour crown, I can't see Armstrong handing any money back because of Bertie's doping .

donrhummy

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.
.

Agreed. What this *should* mean for the 2009 TDF, is that the UCI should go back and retest his samples from that race for clenbuterol and plasticizers.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

I'm guessing the ASO are smart enough not to distribute the prize money until all of the drug tests are in.

(I think they're pretty slow at paying anyway)

Aggieboy

dilemna wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Maybe he can write a book, like Floyd did.

"Stylishly Positive".

Or is it "Positively Stylish".

Staying Positive

'High steaks'

thecrofter

Aggieboy wrote:

dilemna wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Maybe he can write a book, like Floyd did.

"Stylishly Positive".

Or is it "Positively Stylish".

Staying Positive

'High steaks'

Very good, ROFL

wicked

So if you are a 33 year old chinese rider with average ability at best you get a 2 year ban but if you are fortunate enough to be a TdF winner with a somewhat dubious history and here is the crucial part spanish you can expect to escape with a paltry 1 year ban. But hey who gives a sh1t about some chinese bloke who has won sod all, he has no friends in high places. Must be pretty p1ssed off now though.

This all stinks to high heaven. Despite what seems to be a disgraceful attitude to doping in spanish circles it's not that simple, the UCI rules state that the minimum ban for a doping offence is 2 years and if they do not appeal this verdict to CAS then I sincerely hope and expect WADA to or cycling will be the laughing stock of the sporting world.

The whole system of the national federation handing out bans instead of the governing body ridiculous.

deejay

Aggieboy wrote:

dilemna wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Maybe he can write a book, like Floyd did.

"Stylishly Positive".

Or is it "Positively Stylish".

Staying Positive

'High steaks'

Not really but better still is
Why I should have eaten Scottish Beef and not Argentinian Beef.

deejay

wicked wrote:

, he has no friends in high places.

This forum keeps saying "friends in high places" and yet my read on the whole debacle is more like "enemies in the right place".
He didn't fail a test with the TDF but had a sample sent away to another Laboratory for a very in depth examination and the best they could find was a trace of Cleb at 40 times less than the standard tests.
Certainly seems to be a Witch Hunt on Bertie but why should I care as I've got used to nobodies rushing up mountains for the last 15 years.

wicked wrote:

This all stinks to high heaven. Despite what seems to be a disgraceful attitude to doping in spanish circles it's not that simple, the UCI rules state that the minimum ban for a doping offence is 2 years and if they do not appeal this verdict to CAS then I sincerely hope and expect WADA to or cycling will be the laughing stock of the sporting world.

Somebody is going to have egg on the face and be the laughing stock because the negative test was far below the accepted norm.
I could be wrong but I cannot see WADA wanting to get involved and at the moment it is only the Spanish Fed sticking it's neck out.

By the way I'm not defending anyone but again offer another point of view as things on this thread seem to be OTT.

cajun_cyclist

wicked wrote:

So if you are a 33 year old chinese rider with average ability at best you get a 2 year ban but if you are fortunate enough to be a TdF winner with a somewhat dubious history and here is the crucial part spanish you can expect to escape with a paltry 1 year ban. But hey who gives a sh1t about some chinese bloke who has won sod all, he has no friends in high places. Must be pretty p1ssed off now though.

This all stinks to high heaven. Despite what seems to be a disgraceful attitude to doping in spanish circles it's not that simple, the UCI rules state that the minimum ban for a doping offence is 2 years and if they do not appeal this verdict to CAS then I sincerely hope and expect WADA to or cycling will be the laughing stock of the sporting world.

The whole system of the national federation handing out bans instead of the governing body ridiculous.

Real good point, excellent, so UCI actually suspended Li Fuyu it seems.

RadioShack rider Li was provisionally suspended from competition by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) in April 2010 after testing positive for banned drug clenbuterol at Dwaars Door Vlaanderen on March 23.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... duced.html

http://www.marca.com/2011/01/25/ciclism ... 76034.html

Also off of Marca's main page "UCI assures that the decision on Contador is not definite"

The UCI has qualified the "intermediate solution", what is proposed by the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) of sanctioning for a year Alberto Contador because of a positive of clembuterol in the last Tour de Francia and advises that the decision is not definitive, but one step of the procedure marked by "inappropriate speculations.".

So this would mean the UCI would not be happy with the RFEC's verdict and give Bertie the 2 year suspension as with Li Fuyu from China.

cajun_cyclist

deejay wrote:

wicked wrote:

, he has no friends in high places.

This forum keeps saying "friends in high places" and yet my read on the whole debacle is more like "enemies in the right place".
He didn't fail a test with the TDF but had a sample sent away to another Laboratory for a very in depth examination and the best they could find was a trace of Cleb at 40 times less than the standard tests.
Certainly seems to be a Witch Hunt on Bertie but why should I care as I've got used to nobodies rushing up mountains for the last 15 years.

wicked wrote:

This all stinks to high heaven. Despite what seems to be a disgraceful attitude to doping in spanish circles it's not that simple, the UCI rules state that the minimum ban for a doping offence is 2 years and if they do not appeal this verdict to CAS then I sincerely hope and expect WADA to or cycling will be the laughing stock of the sporting world.

Somebody is going to have egg on the face and be the laughing stock because the negative test was far below the accepted norm.
I could be wrong but I cannot see WADA wanting to get involved and at the moment it is only the Spanish Fed sticking it's neck out.

By the way I'm not defending anyone but again offer another point of view as things on this thread seem to be OTT.

I'm no expert but in turn, I guess Li Fuyu, the first Chinese rider on a TdF team was penalised for the same kinds of very small amounts, they are saying this is a similar case and Li said he got it from food as well.

dougzz

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal

Pokerface

Li Fuyu wasn't suspended by the UCI - he was suspended by his Federation. His Federation chose to give him (the correct) two year ban.

The Spanish Fed has opted for a one-year ban - but that doesn't mean that this is the final word on the subject. Fast forward to many appeals....


And either Contador will end up with 2 years or Li will end up with one year.

Although Li also claimed contamination from food, the levels in his system (IIRC) were higher than Contador (but this shouldn't matter under strict liability rules).

It's all well and good to claim the Bertie is getting preferential treatment in comparison to Li - but the two cases (and the people handing out the bans) are not the same.

RichN95.

The irony is that clenbutanol is actually found in a lot of Chinese meat, but not Spanish.

dougzz

Pokerface wrote:

It's all well and good to claim the Bertie is getting preferential treatment in comparison to Li - but the two cases (and the people handing out the bans) are not the same.

The bans yes, but isn't the case brought initially by the UCI who then ask the national federation to deal with it. Did the UCI act in a manner and time frame in accordance with their rules, or did they make a special case of Bertie?

cajun_cyclist

All I wonder about is Bertie's sample was examined especially at the Cologne laboratory if I have this correctly. Surely, Li's sample was not caught in this same way. Just if anyone knows about this off the top of their head, don't research it especially for me.

Pokerface

cajun_cyclist wrote:

All I wonder about is Bertie's sample was examined especially at the Cologne laboratory if I have this correctly. Surely, Li's sample was not caught in this same way. Just if anyone knows about this off the top of their head, don't research it especially for me.

This is correct and is why Li's (higher) values were caught by a standard lab but Contador's were only picked up by the 'super" lab.

pedro118118

There seems to be a lot of latent anti-Contador sentiment here. Let's get things straight, I am no fan of cheats in cycling. That said, I think every case should be given due consideration, especially when the circumstances are not clear cut. The amounts of clenbuterol found in Bertie's pee were so miniscule (as to be undetectable by any other lab, apparently). This is a significant fact that requires fully exploring. Now it may be that he was micro-doping or whatever (although micro-doping on that scale delivery zero performance benefit, if we're to beleive the experts) or there is a question of contaminiation. Of course, he is guitly and has to be sanctioned, but for me, there are mitigating circumstances.

andyp

It doesn't matter how much Clenbuterol he had in his body, the fact that there was any at all is enough to sanction him.

feedbackdestroyer

I'm not defending contador but there is something very troubling here:

"It's not for us to judge," Prudhomme said according to Belga. "It is up to authorities, who have the opportunity to appeal to CAS [Court of Arbitration for Sport] if they wish.

"Clearly it is a complicated affair since the authorities have been working on it for several months. What is certain is that the proceedings actually work and that the fight against doping in cycling is not a sham."

The Frenchman predicts that Contador will be stripped of his Tour title. "He tested positive for a banned substance. I can't imagine there will be no sanction. If it turned out he failed to prove his innocence, he will be disqualified by the UCI."

This is the man running the Tour de France stating clearly that "proof of innocence" is required. There is a fundamental problem here in that our civilization considers "presumption of innocence" a basic human right. It's written into the French constitution and it's written into the European Union constitution.

The only thing that is extremely clear and certain is that this is proof of an injustice and a corrupt way of thinking. The onus must be clearly on the authorities to prove guilt - any shift from that leads directly to "witch hunting" and is a contravention of European law.

iainf72

feedbackdestroyer wrote:

The only thing that is extremely clear and certain is that this is proof of an injustice and a corrupt way of thinking. The onus must be clearly on the authorities to prove guilt - any shift from that leads directly to "witch hunting" and is a contravention of European law.

They've proved guilt. He failed an A and B test. Regardless of how it got there, he's violated the rules and is guilty.

RichN95.

feedbackdestroyer wrote:

This is the man running the Tour de France stating clearly that "proof of innocence" is required. There is a fundamental problem here in that our civilization considers "presumption of innocence" a basic human right. It's written into the French constitution and it's written into the European Union constitution.

The only thing that is extremely clear and certain is that this is proof of an injustice and a corrupt way of thinking. The onus must be clearly on the authorities to prove guilt - any shift from that leads directly to "witch hunting" and is a contravention of European law.

Here's an analogy. The cops search me and find 5 grams of cocaine in my pocket. I say it was planted on me, but I can't say who or when and have no evidence that this ever happened. What happens when I get to court? Do the jury say 'well he has his excuse, but no evidence, but we must presume him innocent' and acquit me? I don't think so.

Contador was presumed innocent until the prosectution presented their evidence. He failed to successfully refute it, therefore failing to prove his innocence.

fidgetyphil

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 376630.stm


Only a proposal the one year ban, apparently.
Frankly they couldn't make a bigger pigs ear of it if they tried.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Contador was presumed innocent until the prosectution presented their evidence. He failed to successfully refute it, therefore failing to prove his innocence.

So why did he get 1 year?

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Contador was presumed innocent until the prosectution presented their evidence. He failed to successfully refute it, therefore failing to prove his innocence.

So why did he get 1 year?

Don't ask me, ask the Spanish Federation.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Contador was presumed innocent until the prosectution presented their evidence. He failed to successfully refute it, therefore failing to prove his innocence.

So why did he get 1 year?

Don't ask me, ask the Spanish Federation.

Quite.

The 1 year is a p!ss-take. Looks like, in hindsight, that in the gap between the positive and revealing it there was probably a negotiation where they worked out what Contador could just about get away with - hence the bizzare explaination.

sam_anon

He hasn't been given any ban yet!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 376630.stm

rick_chasey

sam anon wrote:

He hasn't been given any ban yet!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 376630.stm

The maximum the ban will be is 1 year.


That's the irritation.