Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

stfc1

B3rnieMac wrote:

i've been reading this from the start and FF just doesnt get it. clen was in his system. he should have been banned. if he could prove it was accidental, a reduced ban should be enforced but still a ban.
you can say "oh, but but but" and point to other people who were let off. you can point to "expert analysis" where academics are discussing the feasiblity of ingested meat being the culprit.

YOU HAVE SEEN NO PROOF SO HE SHOULD BE BANNED and that is it. it should be entirely black and white, cut and dry.

None of us know exactly what evidence was presented in Contador's defence, nor what amongst it compelled the RFEC to exonerate him. If he is innocent of deliberate cheating then he deserves to ride as far as I'm concerned. The 'plasticisers' story seems to be taken as gospel here, but I've not seen it confirmed anywhere as anything more than a rumour. Could someone help me out there? It would damn him if it were true.

If there is no compelling evidence in Contador's favour, the appeal will result in a ban and his racing now means he will have missed the chance to have the first six months of his suspension chalked off as already served.

frenchfighter

TA, I'll leave you to it as I have better things to do and can see where this is going.

andyp

@FF - it's not your ball.

andrewjoseph

FF, how many times have you said you will not respond further in this thread?

I recall at least 3.

you and contador have many things in common, you do not keep your word and you don't think rules should be followed:

Especially if there is a perfectly possible, well rounded and backed up explanation.

Seriously, rules or whatever, that is total rubbish

.

Contador choose not to allow tests that could prove his innocence completely, hair samples for clen, DNA samples for blood bags.

Why not?

Why do you trust someone who will not do anything they can to prove their innocence.

Get ready for a 2 year ban from CAS, but I expect you will think that will be conspiracy, not implementation of the rules.

No_Ta_Doctor

stfc1 wrote:

B3rnieMac wrote:

i've been reading this from the start and FF just doesnt get it. clen was in his system. he should have been banned. if he could prove it was accidental, a reduced ban should be enforced but still a ban.
you can say "oh, but but but" and point to other people who were let off. you can point to "expert analysis" where academics are discussing the feasiblity of ingested meat being the culprit.

YOU HAVE SEEN NO PROOF SO HE SHOULD BE BANNED and that is it. it should be entirely black and white, cut and dry.

None of us know exactly what evidence was presented in Contador's defence, nor what amongst it compelled the RFEC to exonerate him. If he is innocent of deliberate cheating then he deserves to ride as far as I'm concerned. The 'plasticisers' story seems to be taken as gospel here, but I've not seen it confirmed anywhere as anything more than a rumour. Could someone help me out there? It would damn him if it were true.

If there is no compelling evidence in Contador's favour, the appeal will result in a ban and his racing now means he will have missed the chance to have the first six months of his suspension chalked off as already served.

The plasticisers test remains a rumour, though it appeared to come from the same source that initially leaked the information regarding the Clenbuterol positive. What is true, however, is that in the wake of that rumour it was announced that WADA are working on a plasticisers test which should be ratified soon. AFAIK this wasn't general knowledge at the time the rumour first appeared. To me that lends the theory at least some credibility.

We also know that whatever evidence Contador initially presented the Spanish federation didn't think it enough for him to escape a ban outright, and proposed a one year ban. Then they changed their minds....

redddraggon

I wonder what Bertie's teammates are thinking?

iainf72

Oh dear

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... port-29311

andrewjoseph

redddraggon wrote:

I wonder what Bertie's teammates are thinking?

Where can they get some charged up beef?

Do I get a share of winnings?

Do I want a share of his winnings?

Will he use his conversion to vegetarianism for his poor form?

Do I want to ride my guts out for this man?

I just want to ride my bike?

FJS

redddraggon wrote:

I wonder what Bertie's teammates are thinking?

Nuyens says he's happy and that it's good news "for the team, for the sponsors, and perhaps also for cycling" - http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrenn ... s_contador

.... he also adds he can understand others are deeply disappointed, but is not allowed to say more on that....

frenchfighter

andrewjoseph wrote:

FF, how many times have you said you will not respond further in this thread?

I recall at least 3.

you and contador have many things in common, you do not keep your word and you don't think rules should be followed:

Especially if there is a perfectly possible, well rounded and backed up explanation.

Seriously, rules or whatever, that is total rubbish

.

Contador choose not to allow tests that could prove his innocence completely, hair samples for clen, DNA samples for blood bags.

Why not?

Why do you trust someone who will not do anything they can to prove their innocence.

Get ready for a 2 year ban from CAS, but I expect you will think that will be conspiracy, not implementation of the rules.

Wrong on four counts.

Never said I wouldn't post again. Simply I give it a break when I can see others are being unreasonable or cannot debate properly or am repeating myself.

I assume you mean Contador saying not wanting to ride again: first of all this is a lightweight point to bring up. 2nd it has been covered. 3rd, what have you said in the heat of the moment when you are suffering from high levels of '...' emotion(s). There is a great film which shows this exactly, cannot remember the name. It has also been the case that he has had hundreds of messages of support and asking him back.

Hair samples for clen? To prove it isn't his? It is a foreign body. It isnt relevant. Also provide source for what you are saying.

DNA for blood bags? Please explain. He had blood tests around the time of the +ves : if they were suspect that would have been mentioned / used. And/or if you refer to Puerto, go back in this thread where it was discussed and shown to be totally fine (I suggest you read it as is informative).

Furthermore, he has said out loud that they could freeze or whatever they need to do to his samples and test them years later when they have better tests.


Ladies and gentleman you must try harder.

frenchfighter

iainf72 wrote:

Oh dear

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... port-29311

Oh dear? Elucidate?

iainf72

frenchfighter wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Oh dear

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... port-29311

Oh dear? Elucidate?

No proof. Not even half baked proof.

disgruntledgoat

I did type a long response to this, but its pointless. I can't be bothered trying harder FF, what's the point in a sport that has no will to even present itself as clean? Why are Cancellara et al queuing up to lambast Ricco, but not uttering a peep about this?

I think I may be done with professional cycling.[/code]

bazbadger

frenchfighter wrote:

....

Never said I wouldn't post again. Simply I give it a break when I can see others are being unreasonable or cannot debate properly or am repeating myself......

Is this tongue in cheek? If not, it really should be.

andyp

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Oh dear

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... port-29311

Oh dear? Elucidate?

No proof. Not even half baked proof.

If the UCI and WADA don't appeal succesfully to CAS then the anti-doping movement in sport is over.

pb21

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Oh dear

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... port-29311

Oh dear? Elucidate?

No proof. Not even half baked proof.

The 'proof' seems to be that because he hasnt failed a dope test in the past (i.e. his passport is in order) this cant be intentional doping either!

:roll:

No_Ta_Doctor

andyp wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Oh dear

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... port-29311

Oh dear? Elucidate?

No proof. Not even half baked proof.

If the UCI and WADA don't appeal succesfully to CAS then the anti-doping movement in sport is over.

Yep, they have to.

Otherwise it's "The dog ate my homework" excuses from here on in.

frenchfighter

Wow what are you guys like. Getting hung up so seriously on this stuff. I am glad, hope this sets a precedent: as I have already said in other words, an athlete having to prove in a case like this is unreasonable.

Also, nothing new in that link.

I mean like seriously, you guys think a rider should be stung for 2 years due to a totally insignificant amount of a product which has a viable alternative to*. REGARDLESS of the rules. Just out of common sense. If you feel so strongly about these rules maybe you should write letters to the relevant people. Or maybe you are old school stiff and cannot adapt to circumstances.

*willful injection: already covered to be impossible at those levels
trace in blood bag: none of the authorities are concerned with pursuing this so why are you.
-in short there is no viable alternative to ingestiion via meat yet you adamently beat you keyboards in staunch support

bompington

I wonder how many PEDs can plausibly be claimed to be found in foods, supplements, medications etc.?
Because all you need to do now is keep a slab of (let's just say as a random example off the top of my head) beef laced with clenbuterol in your fridge, then when you get caught you just serve it up, so to speak. Shouldn't be too difficult for the doping doctors to calculate doses etc.

It still looks like some people here don't understand why strict liability is necessary.

No_Ta_Doctor

bompington wrote:

It still looks like some people here don't understand why strict liability is necessary.

+1

frenchfighter

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I did type a long response to this, but its pointless. I can't be bothered trying harder FF, what's the point in a sport that has no will to even present itself as clean? Why are Cancellara et al queuing up to lambast Ricco, but not uttering a peep about this?

I think I may be done with professional cycling.[/code]

I am sorry you feel like that. I would maybe say look at it with giving him the benefit of the doubt that his performances are genuine and he has a proper explanation.

It is not a clear cut case by any means vs other cases so I wouldn't think there is some great injustice done.

As for their silence here: I haven't scoured twitters etc for opinion yet; maybe there is some. I would take their silence as saying they believe in his credibility. Also Ricco's case is so totally different.

iainf72

frenchfighter wrote:

As for their silence here: I haven't scoured twitters etc for opinion yet; maybe there is some. I would take their silence as saying they believe in his credibility. Also Ricco's case is so totally different.

Did you read Marco Pinotti's tweet?

andrewjoseph

frenchfighter wrote:

Never said I wouldn't post again. Simply I give it a break when I can see others are being unreasonable or cannot debate properly or am repeating myself.

Yes you have, several times, but you don't keep your word.

3rd, what have you said in the heat of the moment when you are suffering from high levels of '...' emotion(s).

What heat of the moment, it was during an orchestrated press conference!

Hair samples for clen? To prove it isn't his? It is a foreign body. It isnt relevant. Also provide source for what you are saying.

It is relevant, just do a web search for 'clenbuterol athlete hair sample.' if clen is found in hair, it can help prove how long it has been in the system. They can detect it up to six months after ingestion. I'm sure there was an athlete that used this test to prove he had not been abusing clenbuterol

If you refer to Puerto, go back in this thread where it was discussed and shown to be totally fine (I suggest you read it as is informative).

Yes I was referring to peurto. Why is it that other people have to search for and provide the proof/quotes/information, for you, but when you have something to refer to, other people have to get the /proof/quotes/information. Do you need everyone to do all the work for you?

Furthermore, he has said out loud that they could freeze or whatever they need to do to his samples and test them years later when they have better tests.

His samples from races/out of season testing, yes. when and where has he said you can test any bags from puerto and compare to my DNA? Has it been done? what was the result?

You did not answer my point about following rules.

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

Wow what are you guys like. Getting hung up so seriously on this stuff. I am glad, hope this sets a precedent: as I have already said in other words, an athlete having to prove in a case like this is unreasonable.

Also, nothing new in that link.

I mean like seriously, you guys think a rider should be stung for 2 years due to a totally insignificant amount of a product which has a viable alternative to*. REGARDLESS of the rules. Just out of common sense. If you feel so strongly about these rules maybe you should write letters to the relevant people. Or maybe you are old school stiff and cannot adapt to circumstances.

*willful injection: already covered to be impossible at those levels
trace in blood bag: none of the authorities are concerned with pursuing this so why are you.
-in short there is no viable alternative to ingestiion via meat yet you adamently beat you keyboards in staunch support

I think what we're like is a bunch of people who would like to see a working and workable anti-doping policy in sport. Strict liability is absolutely essential to that. Sorry if we're a touch worked up about the potential knock-on effects to cycling and sport as a whole of your golden boy getting off without even a slap on the wrist, merely because he said he didn't do it.

The "no viable alternative" statement is so laughable I'm not even going to go into it, if you haven't understood yet you never will.

In short, this is now a whole lot bigger than Contador, it's about having and supporting a set of rules that at least try to keep PEDs out of sport. Contador merely sets the precedent.

FJS

andyp wrote:

If the UCI and WADA don't appeal succesfully to CAS then the anti-doping movement in sport is over.

Remember CAS tried to keep ASO from banning Astana from the TdF after Puerto? After some decent initial Guardia Civil action BTW. Spain & UCI = bad; WADA & CAS = good is no given. I'm not completely holding my breath...

chrisday

No tA Doctor wrote:

bompington wrote:

It still looks like some people here don't understand why strict liability is necessary.

+1

+ Infinity

gabriel959

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

As for their silence here: I haven't scoured twitters etc for opinion yet; maybe there is some. I would take their silence as saying they believe in his credibility. Also Ricco's case is so totally different.

Did you read Marco Pinotti's tweet?

which one?

moray_gub

gabriel959 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

As for their silence here: I haven't scoured twitters etc for opinion yet; maybe there is some. I would take their silence as saying they believe in his credibility. Also Ricco's case is so totally different.

Did you read Marco Pinotti's tweet?

which one?

Emm i think it would be his latest one re: a certain American Footballer now doing time for kidnapping and robbery.

No_Ta_Doctor

FJS wrote:

andyp wrote:

If the UCI and WADA don't appeal succesfully to CAS then the anti-doping movement in sport is over.

Remember CAS tried to keep ASO from banning Astana from the TdF after Puerto? After some decent initial Guardia Civil action BTW. Spain & UCI = bad; WADA & CAS = good is no given. I'm not completely holding my breath...

CAS were right though, there was no official case against Astana in the public domain.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana-wurth-ok-to-race

LangerDan

If you can't access riders tweets directly, they are collated on www.bikechatter.com

e.g. http://www.bikechatter.com/main/foruser ... rcopinotti

about 7 hours - What is OJ Simpson doing now ?