Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

mroli

I just wondered if there were any Spanish speakers/Spaniards on here that could reflect on the mood of the Spanish press - what with Bertie getting a year (apparently) David Garcia getting two, Mosquera lining up for a ban - is it viewed as a "shameful" thing, or are people just gutted to be caught? Or is it viewed as an anglo saxon conspiracy?

Bugly

feedbackdestroyer wrote:

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

....
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.

I thought that under french law the burden was to prove innocence (but I could be wrong being neither Eurpoean or a legal person)...
Even so Dirty Bertie would have an easier time proving white was black then dodging this charge. Good Riddance

frenchfighter

Rolf Sørensen:

“Personally I think yes, it is unfortunate for the Tour de France if Alberto Contador is not included,” he said. "As a spectator, commentator and fan of cycling, it had been completely fantastic to see Contador on Riis' team against Schleck brothers, as people - a bit between the lines - believe they committed mutiny against Riis.

“It's a great contest that I am sorry that we won’t get to see,” he commented considering Contador's worst case scenario.

Andy Schleck:

“For me Alberto is the winner of the 2010 Tour,” he said, according to Wielerland.nl. “I would love to win the race for real.”

Regardless of whether he should be banned by rule, the fact remains that he is well liked and respected by many people within the sport - the people that are best placed to offer an opinion.

Also let it be known that in a UK court, if you are accused of something you do not have to prove your innocence, the prosecution has to prove your guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Debating with such force and being anal about 'he contravened the rules, regardless of accidentally or not, so he should be given a 2 year ban' is not a quality attitude or stance. One should surpass boundaries set by officaldom and be able to measure a man after weighing everything in the balance; in Contador's case the balance being overwhelmingly positive.

Don't bother replying to me as the attitude of many is perverse and reeks of gang mentality which doesn't sit well me.

Garry H

frenchfighter wrote:

Rolf Sørensen:

“Personally I think yes, it is unfortunate for the Tour de France if Alberto Contador is not included,” he said. "As a spectator, commentator and fan of cycling, it had been completely fantastic to see Contador on Riis' team against Schleck brothers, as people - a bit between the lines - believe they committed mutiny against Riis.

“It's a great contest that I am sorry that we won’t get to see,” he commented considering Contador's worst case scenario.

Andy Schleck:

“For me Alberto is the winner of the 2010 Tour,” he said, according to Wielerland.nl. “I would love to win the race for real.”

Regardless of whether he should be banned by rule, the fact remains that he is well liked and respected by many people within the sport - the people that are best placed to offer an opinion.

Also let it be known that in a UK court, if you are accused of something you do not have to prove your innocence, the prosecution has to prove your guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Debating with such force and being anal about 'he contravened the rules, regardless of accidentally or not, so he should be given a 2 year ban' is not a quality attitude or stance. One should surpass boundaries set by officaldom and be able to measure a man after weighing everything in the balance; in Contador's case the balance being overwhelmingly positive.

Don't bother replying to me as the attitude of many is perverse and reeks of gang mentality which doesn't sit well me.

Indeed.

bompington

frenchfighter wrote:

Don't bother replying to me as the attitude of many is perverse and reeks of gang mentality which doesn't sit well me.

You heard the man, this thread is now finished

Garry H

bompington wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Don't bother replying to me as the attitude of many is perverse and reeks of gang mentality which doesn't sit well me.

You heard the man, this thread is now finished

Sorry The man has spoken. I say "Free the Madrid one", who's with me? (Apart from FF and, allegedly, Rolf Sorenson. friend of Riis).

rick_chasey

Hey, lay off the guy.

He's got a big love in with Contador.

I have a big love in with Boonen.

His man got busted doing naughty drugs.

My man got busted donig fun drugs.

He's alowed to defend the guy, jeez!

Anyway, I like the pics.

Don't let 'em get to you French! (even if I usually think you're wrong. But sssh...)

The Prodigy

Is this a thread about AC or FF. Can't have one without the other on this forum.

FF - doesn't the positive test prove his guilt?

If it doesn't then we might as well stop testing now.

I really love some of the comments on this thread about the sport looking bad because of the Contador saga. Get with it people, no one but cycling fans cares!!!

moray_gub

frenchfighter wrote:

Rolf Sørensen:

.

Don't bother replying to me as the attitude of many is perverse and reeks of gang mentality which doesn't sit well me.

Attention seeker alert...............Attention seeker alert

dougzz

The Prodigy wrote:

Is this a thread about AC or FF. Can't have one without the other on this forum.

FF - doesn't the positive test prove his guilt?

If it doesn't then we might as well stop testing now.

I really love some of the comments on this thread about the sport looking bad because of the Contador saga. Get with it people, no one but cycling fans cares!!!

And many of those don't care anyway.

A man that rides with Panache can be forgiven anything, as does a man that defends a man that rides with Panache. You style deficient numpties know nothing of the great Alberto, he is style, he is the very definition of attacking flair, he Always rides to win, and history cannot be undone by one moody steak. You must agree or I'll post a photo comparison to prove it.

moray_gub

frenchfighter wrote:

Rolf Sørensen:
on’t get to see,” he commented considering Contador's worst case scenario.

Andy Schleck:

“For me Alberto is the winner of the 2010 Tour,” he said, according to Wielerland.nl. “I would love to win the race for real.”


.

Its a complete and utter irrelveance how well liked he is the bottom line is he FAILED a dope test and is now branded a drugs cheat , up there with the DDLs and Riccos and the like. That does not easily with you but hey fling all your man love into one basket its gonna come back and bite you some day.

simon_e

frenchfighter wrote:

Don't bother replying to me as the attitude of many is perverse and reeks of gang mentality which doesn't sit well me.

I'm replying. Watcha gonna do about it, big boy?

Whose forum is this, anyway? I'm not part of a gang, I have an opinion that is 100% my own. I don't want a witch-hunt I just want a sport without dopers. Bertie broke the rules therefore he shouldn't play. How simple can it get? Do we have to get into a discussion about what rules are for and why they are required?

FF, based on those rider quotes, do I take it they are doping apologists and unwilling to condemn someone who has contravened the rules? The sport isn't going to improve with that attitude in the ranks.

RichN95 wrote:

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

I'm with RichN95. IMO no point comparing this with UK law anyway, he's not necessarily a criminal. Dan Staite was banned from competing in this country for breaking the rules of the sport, not the law.

wicked

frenchfighter wrote:

Rolf Sørensen:

“Personally I think yes, it is unfortunate for the Tour de France if Alberto Contador is not included,” he said. "As a spectator, commentator and fan of cycling, it had been completely fantastic to see Contador on Riis' team against Schleck brothers, as people - a bit between the lines - believe they committed mutiny against Riis.

“It's a great contest that I am sorry that we won’t get to see,” he commented considering Contador's worst case scenario.

Andy Schleck:

“For me Alberto is the winner of the 2010 Tour,” he said, according to Wielerland.nl. “I would love to win the race for real.”

Regardless of whether he should be banned by rule, the fact remains that he is well liked and respected by many people within the sport - the people that are best placed to offer an opinion.

Also let it be known that in a UK court, if you are accused of something you do not have to prove your innocence, the prosecution has to prove your guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Debating with such force and being anal about 'he contravened the rules, regardless of accidentally or not, so he should be given a 2 year ban' is not a quality attitude or stance. One should surpass boundaries set by officaldom and be able to measure a man after weighing everything in the balance; in Contador's case the balance being overwhelmingly positive.

Don't bother replying to me as the attitude of many is perverse and reeks of gang mentality which doesn't sit well me.

Complete and utter tosh.

bigmat

What all this proves is:

1. Bruyneel really is the master doper - leave him at your peril;

2. The Spanish cycling federation is a complete joke, as is the system that allows national federations to dole out bans;

3. Contador is, and almost certainly always has been, a doped up cheat.

Nothing more to say on this now, don't bother posting replies, this thread is FINISHED.

moray_gub

BigMat wrote:

What all this proves is:

1. Bruyneel really is the master doper - leave him at your peril;

2. The Spanish cycling federation is a complete joke, as is the system that allows national federations to dole out bans;

3. Contador is, and almost certainly always has been, a doped up cheat.

Nothing more to say on this now, don't bother posting replies, this thread is FINISHED.

says who like ?

donkykong

tainted meat, did,nt soft cell write a song about that or was it tainted love !

cajun_cyclist

The manner in which they caught Contador should be a warning to all riders that they may get caught and maybe Contador is innocent of intentionally ingesting or getting Clen in his system.

BUT for such a long time, it has been said the riders get the drugs and then the drug testers have to catch up with them by developing new tests and EPO was a big game changer to begin with.

So, however a rider is caught, I tend to have little sympathy that the process worked against them and that's for riders in general.

RichN95.

BigMat wrote:

2. The Spanish cycling federation is a complete joke, as is the system that allows national federations to dole out bans;

The Spanish Federation President has more or less said, today, that Contador shouldn't appeal as CAS aren't as lenient and he'll get a longer ban.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/appeal-to-cas-could-be-counterproductive-for-contador

pitchshifter

He is appealing, risking a longer ban...

zammmmo

Didn't he say he'd jack-in professional cycling if he got banned? So maybe he's going for broke with the appeal. Yeah right. He'll be back.

jonginge

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/ ... eal_157439

Retire stuff was said in the heat of the moment, apparently

wicked

JonGinge wrote:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/at-news-conference-contador-vows-to-appeal_157439

Retire stuff was said in the heat of the moment, apparently

So a cheat, a fraud, a liar and a bullshitter too. The list of redeeming qualities is becoming a little thin.

Pokerface

RichN95 wrote:

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.

Here's a more appropriate analogy.

The cops have a 'super scanner' - like they use at airports to detect the molecules in explosives. They scan you with it and find traces of cocaine in your pocket. But you haven't bought any coke.

Turns out it was residue that fell off a £20 note that someone else used to snort it - and you ended up with the bill (not a far-fetched idea as this is actually quite common).

But you no longer have the bill and only the residue on your person.

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that even the smallest amount of coke (molecules at most) found on your person is enough to charge you...

I'm not buying the contaminated meat story. Just altering your analogy a bit...


Anyway - how many cyclists when convicted of doping still say they are innocent and 'vow to clear their name'? At least 90% of them. And how many come clean later on? Probably also around 90%.

calvjones

I notice his statements studiously avoid any mention of plasticizers. If he appeals to CAS you can be sure those will come back to bite him.

A year is incredibly generous. He should take it and run.

feedbackdestroyer

I don't see any evidence that proves Contador intentionally used this drug.
Alain Baxter had a similar issue in skiing at the Olympics with an amphetamine and was cleared by all international bodies except the IOC. Having the drug in your body is NOT proof that you were doping. The quantity is so small in this case that there must be real doubt.

The point I made earlier on is that officials are stating in public that there is a requirement to "prove innocence". I was not debating whether or not Contador was innocent or not. What is clearly wrong is that there is a definite and clear process of placing the onus on the individual to "prove innocence" and that is against human rights - like it or not You cannot require someone by law in Europe to "prove innocence". On addition it is accepted that a drugs test is not proof of doping.

Even a person held in custody is still presumed innocent until proven guilty - with the onus ALWAYS on proving guilt. We all know how laughable and incompetent the "justice" system is and that it's all about money and corrupt legal systems and morally perverse barristers with no guts or character, but that is totally another issue. Incompetence or inadequacy of the law and legal system does not justify the abuse of human rights and particularly the stated intention of that purpose.

No_Ta_Doctor

feedbackdestroyer wrote:

I don't see any evidence that proves Contador intentionally used this drug.
Alain Baxter had a similar issue in skiing at the Olympics with an amphetamine and was cleared by all international bodies except the IOC. Having the drug in your body is NOT proof that you were doping. The quantity is so small in this case that there must be real doubt.

The point I made earlier on is that officials are stating in public that there is a requirement to "prove innocence". I was not debating whether or not Contador was innocent or not. What is clearly wrong is that there is a definite and clear process of placing the onus on the individual to "prove innocence" and that is against human rights - like it or not You cannot require someone by law in Europe to "prove innocence". On addition it is accepted that a drugs test is not proof of doping.

Even a person held in custody is still presumed innocent until proven guilty - with the onus ALWAYS on proving guilt. We all know how laughable and incompetent the "justice" system is and that it's all about money and corrupt legal systems and morally perverse barristers with no guts or character, but that is totally another issue. Incompetence or inadequacy of the law and legal system does not justify the abuse of human rights and particularly the stated intention of that purpose.

I disagree entirely. If there wasn't strict liability then every doper caught would claim his drink had been spiked, and if there wasn't a reliable witness with a video camera filming him taking drugs he'd get off. There would be absolutely no point in doing any testing whatsoever.

This isn't a legal case, it's a sporting rule. It isn't bound by the same legal procedure.

For the record though you can lose your job in many fields (train driver perhaps as an example) for failing a random drugs test. If it's in your blood you have to provide a convincing argument of how it got there unintentionally. I know people who wont eat anything with poppy seeds in as they can turn up a false positive for opiates and they'd risk losing their job.

RichN95.

feedbackdestroyer wrote:

I don't see any evidence that proves Contador intentionally used this drug.
Alain Baxter had a similar issue in skiing at the Olympics with an amphetamine and was cleared by all international bodies except the IOC. Having the drug in your body is NOT proof that you were doping. The quantity is so small in this case that there must be real doubt.

Baxter, though, still had the offending Vicks inhaler, the receipt and a letter from Vicks confirming there was a difference between the US and UK recipies. He was still stripped of his medal and given a ban. Contador, on the other hand, has provided nothing to back up his alibi (as far as we know).

Having the drug in your body is proof that it got in your body. And that's a doping offence, regardless of how it got there, under the doctrine of strict liability. That means a disqualification and a ban. Any accidental use, if it can be proven, merely reduces the ban from two years.

The 'prove innocence' stuff is just people getting hung up over semantics.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

The 'prove innocence' stuff is just people getting hung up over semantics.

I'd hardly call it semantics, even though I support strict liability. It's a founding principle of justice and the basis for our legal system. It just doesn't apply to violations of sporting regulations. There are good reasons why not, but there are also good reasons why we shouldn't ignore it in principle.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The 'prove innocence' stuff is just people getting hung up over semantics.

I'd hardly call it semantics, even though I support strict liability. It's a founding principle of justice and the basis for our legal system. It just doesn't apply to violations of sporting regulations. There are good reasons why not, but there are also good reasons why we shouldn't ignore it in principle.

We're not ignoring principles. The 'failed to prove his innocence' quote came from Christian Prudhomme. So that's a Frenchman, not involved in the case, with no legal background, speaking in French and translated into English. It is not an extract from the WADA rules book. People are just quibbling over a turn of phrase.

And I don't quite understand what the principles of English criminal law have to do with a Spanish disciplinary tribunal, anyway.

Anonymous

I think it shows the character of someone, how they behave when they have been caught out.

If they twist and whine, trying to get out of trouble when you have the evidence of a positive test, then I think you really can't come back from that.

If yo hold your hands up and accept the ruling, help with the enquiry and take it on the chin you may be able to come back to the sport, try and re-invent yourself.

I know he has a lot to lose, but he really is pi55ing into the wind with appeals, because if he does get away with it, he will never be rated or trusted again.