Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
Okay let’s consider an analogy of the topic at hand . What would be your stance on this ?
You are out for a night out . Your brake light doesn’t work and the Feds stop you . They suspect you may have been drinking alcohol . They breathalise you with a new super dooper breath test machine that is significantly more sensitive and can show results that would not register of current equipment . You fail on this new test at the road side and at the station . However you pass on the old testing machine ( current legal requirements ) .
You end up in front of the beaks and the whole weight of the legal system based on precedents and plead innocence . Your banned for 1 year with a fine of £1000 . You lose your job . How do you feel ?.............Pretty pi$$ed of I would imagine .
Alcohol is not a natural substance in your blood
You don’t need Alcohol to perform your Job ( well some folks might say they do
)
You were below the legal limit :shock:
You could give a plausible explanation why traces were there ( ie my dinner was cooked with it but couldn’t prove how much as you've consumed it ) or some other reason that cannot provide evidence for :?
You had a pint or glass of wine knowing you shouldn’t but thought it would not put you over the legal limit ( you knew nothing about new testing procedures ) ie cheating the system in drink driving you should NOTt dink at all NOT try to get away with it :evil:
You were knobbled because someone held a grudge and knew you couldn’t prove it :roll:
I have no opinion either way on whether Bertie is innocent or guilty or did so knowingly ; unknowingly or was knobbled in some way . Just because its sport it doesn’t make it a special case for legal interpretation.based on current process .0 -
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
By your standards, any doper who can google up a semi-viable excuse should be cleared without them having to back up their excuse with any evidence whatsoever.
Vanishing twin, too much Jack Daniels, the medicine is for my dog/mother-in-law, too much blood in my legs. No problem, carry on. Is that the way you want it?
That's why we have strict liability.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Analogy FAIL. Contador was not below the legal limit for clenbuterol, because there isn't one.Steveorow wrote:You were below the legal limit
Also, all analogies or arguments based on the law fail because doping isn't a question of breaking the law, it's breaking the rules of a sport - effectively a contract that participants sign to participate.0 -
steve - there is a legal limit with alcohol. current,non fictional breathalisers can still detect alcohol on your breath but if it is below the legal limit, you cant be arrested for it. there is no limit for clen in your system. any in your system = fail.0
-
Agreed, they've brought it on themselves via past conduct.
Vino's blood in the legs was a corker though. Top marks! Can only be equalled by Peruvian biscuits and contaminated beef..........0 -
Steveorow wrote:Okay let’s consider an analogy of the topic at hand . What would be your stance on this ?
You are out for a night out . Your brake light doesn’t work and the Feds stop you . They suspect you may have been drinking alcohol . They breathalise you with a new super dooper breath test machine that is significantly more sensitive and can show results that would not register of current equipment . You fail on this new test at the road side and at the station . However you pass on the old testing machine ( current legal requirements ) .
You end up in front of the beaks and the whole weight of the legal system based on precedents and plead innocence . Your banned for 1 year with a fine of £1000 . You lose your job . How do you feel ?.............Pretty pi$$ed of I would imagine .
Alcohol is not a natural substance in your blood
You don’t need Alcohol to perform your Job ( well some folks might say they do )
You were below the legal limit :shock:
You could give a plausible explanation why traces were there ( ie my dinner was cooked with it but couldn’t prove how much as you've consumed it ) or some other reason that cannot provide evidence for :?
You had a pint or glass of wine knowing you shouldn’t but thought it would not put you over the legal limit ( you knew nothing about new testing procedures ) ie cheating the system in drink driving you should NOTt dink at all NOT try to get away with it :evil:
You were knobbled because someone held a grudge and knew you couldn’t prove it :roll:
I have no opinion either way on whether Bertie is innocent or guilty or did so knowingly ; unknowingly or was knobbled in some way . Just because its sport it doesn’t make it a special case for legal interpretation.based on current process .
Your analogy fails completely on the fact that there is a legal limit for alcohol in your bloodstream while in control of a vehicle. If you're under it then you're fine, legally. The point of alcohol driving laws is to ensure that drunk people aren't driving, not that people whop drive never drink.
Your summary is flawed because it is quite blatantly wrong, factually. Sport IS a special case, these are sporting rules and regulations, not legal ones (though in countries where there are criminal laws wrt doping there is some overlap).
That you consider the concept of strict liability to be morally wrong is up to you. The fact is that we can't have an anti doping program without it, or we need to catch dopers with a bloody syringe in their hands.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
airwise wrote:I'll be there at the roadside all Summer giving the cheating little barsteward hell. Watch out for Alberto's Roadside BBQ - guaranteed to help you through the stage.
I was going to suggest everyone should turn their backs to him and not make a sound when he rides past but that is much better!!!
Mine would be somewhat harsh on the other riders too in fairness...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Ex-cyclist Ramón Riestra, member of the Board of Governors of ASAJA (Asociación Agraria Jóvenes Agricultores) of Asturias, exposes the hypothetical entrance into Spain of South American cattle contaminated with clenbuterol. To him, Contador is “a scapegoat.”
How can you expose a hypothetical? :?0 -
RichN95 wrote: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
By your standards, any doper who can google up a semi-viable excuse should be cleared without them having to back up their excuse with any evidence whatsoever.
Vanishing twin, too much Jack Daniels, the medicine is for my dog/mother-in-law, too much blood in my legs. No problem, carry on. Is that the way you want it?
That's why we have strict liability.
No it is based on intelligent people being able to analyse every case and make a decision using their experience, advanced knowledge, exclusive information etc. No hard and fast rule: a computer can do that. I don't back excuses, I look at the circumstances of every case, if I care enough to do so, then form an opinion.
Why don't you think it can be checked like that? Provisional suspension for a substance (NOT ALL) found which could perfectly reasonably be ingested inadvertantly, then cleared or enforced based on investigation.
If you think it is because they are corrupt or inept, that is a totally different issue at hand. I tend to have a more positive view of the majority and think it is the minority who do 'wrong'.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:No one has responded to this. You don't do your credibility any favours.frenchfighter wrote:One rider. Congratulations. Keep on trying.
Also, talk about consistency, apply yours. Go find every single clen case and every single similar case for other substances. Lay those down to me then you will have some ground to stand on. Show me that every single case has resulted in a 2yr ban and Contador is the only rider who hasnt got a 2yr then we can talk.
Otherwise it it pointless.
Also am tired of opinion, very few concrete arguments or facts or good links to expert analysis and comment.
Other than the undisputed fact that he had traces of clen in his system which is not a naturally occurring chemical in the human body and therefore is banned in any quanitity and under the strict liability rules is an automatic 2 year ban what other concrete argument or facts are required?0 -
Pross wrote:FrenchFighter wrote:
Also am tired of opinion, very few concrete arguments or facts or good links to expert analysis and comment.
Other than the undisputed fact that he had traces of clen in his system which is not a naturally occurring chemical in the human body and therefore is banned in any quanitity and under the strict liability rules is an automatic 2 year ban what other concrete argument or facts are required?
Don't forget that Clen has never been found in Spanish beef and is banned in the EU. (Unlike China, South Africa and Mexico where it is widely used)Twitter: @RichN950 -
frenchfighter wrote:RichN95 wrote: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
By your standards, any doper who can google up a semi-viable excuse should be cleared without them having to back up their excuse with any evidence whatsoever.
Vanishing twin, too much Jack Daniels, the medicine is for my dog/mother-in-law, too much blood in my legs. No problem, carry on. Is that the way you want it?
That's why we have strict liability.
No it is based on intelligent people being able to analyse every case and make a decision using their experience, advanced knowledge, exclusive information etc. No hard and fast rule: a computer can do that. I don't back excuses, I look at the circumstances of every case, if I care enough to do so, then form an opinion.
Why don't you think it can be checked like that? Provisional suspension for a substance (NOT ALL) found which could perfectly reasonably be ingested inadvertantly, then cleared or enforced based on investigation.
If you think it is because they are corrupt or inept, that is a totally different issue at hand. I tend to have a more positive view of the majority and think it is the minority who do 'wrong'.
And yet you support Contador being let off without providing any evidence of how he had Clenbuterol in his wee. The Spanish effectively said "we can't prove he didn't ingest it accidentally, we'll let him off". Can you teacher prove your dog didn't eat your homework?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
frenchfighter wrote: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
The viable alternative (and most likely option) is that he took on stored blood that had the minute traces in it due to his own choice of lab being unable to detect them. This means that there is a viable alternative that his cheating is worse than a bit of clen in his system. That appears far more viable that the dodgy steak excuse.0 -
I wish that all those banging on about how strict liability means an automatic 2 year ban would read the rules on how that ban can be overturned depending on how the substance got into the body!!!!!!
The rules specify if a rider can prove it was not their fault, they can be cleared completely.
They do NOT specify how that proof must occur and to what standard, etc
And to FF - I wish you would stop simply buying into the Contador PR crap about how it is 'impossible' that the clen got into his system via the meat as no other explanation is possible and that small doses are impossible, etc
It's a whitewash campaign and you've fallen for it without thinking for yourself.0 -
JSWBA: that is sharp.
By the way, time for appeal may actually be more than 30 days.“Following receipt of the entire file and decision from the Spanish cycling federation, the UCI has 30 days to exercise its right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA has another 21 days to determine whether or not to use its independent right of appeal to the CAS.”
That means that WADA will have 51 days to study the Spanish dossier,
Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7450/ ... z1E8GM4M2a0 -
I knew the anaolgy was not perfect . As I said I was not advocating Bertie is innocent . So if sport is to be treated as a special case then what principle should sport use ?
Guilty until proven innocent . Berties condemed .
What most civilised society work from the innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt . Hes innocent because the prosecution cant prove beyond reasonable doubt he did it deliberatley for advantage ; Im sure if it could it would have been .
It is what it is the best of a bad lot and I agree an unsatisfactory output whatever side of the fence we sit on . What are the alternatives though ?
Going down the Gulity until proven innocent opens up another much bigger can of worms .0 -
Pokerface wrote:I wish that all those banging on about how strict liability means an automatic 2 year ban would read the rules on how that ban can be overturned depending on how the substance got into the body!!!!!!
The rules specify if a rider can prove it was not their fault, they can be cleared completely.
They do NOT specify how that proof must occur and to what standard, etc
And to FF - I wish you would stop simply buying into the Contador PR crap about how it is 'impossible' that the clen got into his system via the meat as no other explanation is possible and that small doses are impossible, etc
It's a whitewash campaign and you've fallen for it without thinking for yourself.
It is an automatic 2 year ban unless you can prove otherwise. The problem in this case is that the decision to not ban appears to have been made on the basis of a rider's word rather than any proof.0 -
Steveorow wrote:
Going down the Gulity until proven innocent opens up another much bigger can of worms .
According to the rules of the sport : Clen in your pee, you're guilty.
There was no dispute from Bertie that there was clen in his pee, so he's guilty.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Pokerface wrote:I wish that all those banging on about how strict liability means an automatic 2 year ban would read the rules on how that ban can be overturned depending on how the substance got into the body!!!!!!
The rules specify if a rider can prove it was not their fault, they can be cleared completely.
They do NOT specify how that proof must occur and to what standard, etc
......
Yeah Pokerface:We have received many emails and messages from a variety of people asking why Contador should be deemed a ‘special case’ when riders such as Li Fuyu and Alessandro Colò were handed down sanctions, both riders incidentally also claimed that their Clenbuterol positives were a result of contaminated meat.
http://bikepure.org/2011/02/contador-cl ... mment-1582
And now Michael Dean Pepper, South Africa is a 3rd suspended cyclist... why doesn't this same logic apply to these other 3?? I know you are saying a lot of people here don't know the facts like you, fine. That may well be so with some of us, me.0 -
Maybe I’m being too literal and am missing the finer points, but for me the logical chain of events should be. Clen found in his body by latest analytical technique that only a limited number of labs can routinely do, so he gets an automatic 2 year ban. However, strict liability may not sit well in a court of law, especially those in Europe, so he should immediately challenge the ban in a court of law on the grounds that it restricts his freedom of employment and ability to trade. He may well have signed a contract agreeing to strict liability, but a court may consider this an unreasonable restriction and rule it unenforceable. This may force governing bodies, etc. to have to prove intent in doping cases.
Analytical techniques are becoming more and more sensitive and will soon be able to find one molecule of an offending chemical in pint of blood. As detectable levels get lower, the probability of it being there from environmental contamination increase. Sitting at the top of the food chain, humans are also good at accumulating environmental “pollutants”. Just look at the amount of prescribed pharmaceuticals that are now sloshing around in the environment. There has to be a limit of detection, below which it is considered environmental contamination, from whatever source, otherwise one day someone will get caught out from eating dodgy beef or swimming to close to the sewage outflow on the beach.
Would it be good for the sport? Probably not, some riders would get away with doping, and it would deprive us of all the entertainment we’ve had over the last few months. However, I’m sure the legality of strict liability will be challenged soon and will probably end up in some European court, via several in Spain. I’m also sure that detection end points will have to be set as mass spectrometers, etc. become ever more sensitive.0 -
I'm saying he's clearly proved his innocence to his National Fed. None of us have seen this proof or know what the standard of proof needs to be.
I am not looking at other cases.
I think he's guilty. But that is an opinion.
It's not as simple as 'Clen in pee, 2 year ban'.
If it goes to CAS and they can judge more objectively, perhaps we'll see his proof doesn't stand up. Or maybe it will. But if CAS let him off, will everyone then agree he's met his burdon of proof?0 -
Steveorow wrote:I knew the anaolgy was not perfect . As I said I was not advocating Bertie is innocent . So if sport is to be treated as a special case then what principle should sport use ?
Guilty until proven innocent . Berties condemed .
What most civilised society work from the innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt . Hes innocent because the prosecution cant prove beyond reasonable doubt he did it deliberatley for advantage ; Im sure if it could it would have been .
It is what it is the best of a bad lot and I agree an unsatisfactory output whatever side of the fence we sit on . What are the alternatives though ?
Going down the Gulity until proven innocent opens up another much bigger can of worms .
It's not guilty until proven innocent though. There doesn't need to be any intent to dope, just for a banned substance (or any of the other trigger points such as naturally occurring substances being over normal levels). Therefore guilt is proven by having a positive in each of your samples. You then get a chance to provide mitigation which may result in a reduced penalty. To take your analogy, it's like someone getting done for drink driving, the breathalyser and subsequent blood test proove you are slightly over the legal limit and you are therefore guilty of the crime. You would have a starting point penalty of a fine of 150% of your weekly salary and 12 month disqualification. Your mate then admits he spiked your drink against your knowledge, the fine could be reduced or possibly you may get found not guilty if the proof that you were unaware was compelling enough. So it really isn't some unfair "guilty until proven innocent" system.0 -
Pokerface wrote:I wish that all those banging on about how strict liability means an automatic 2 year ban would read the rules on how that ban can be overturned depending on how the substance got into the body!!!!!!
The rules specify if a rider can prove it was not their fault, they can be cleared completely.
They do NOT specify how that proof must occur and to what standard, etc
My understanding is that the 2 year ban is automatic, implemented, then adjusted, depending on proof.
This did not happen.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
andrewjoseph wrote:Pokerface wrote:I wish that all those banging on about how strict liability means an automatic 2 year ban would read the rules on how that ban can be overturned depending on how the substance got into the body!!!!!!
The rules specify if a rider can prove it was not their fault, they can be cleared completely.
They do NOT specify how that proof must occur and to what standard, etc
My understanding is that the 2 year ban is automatic, implemented, then adjusted, depending on proof.
This did not happen.
I think you just have a flawed understanding.0 -
Term1te jumped to the end point of the discussion I was trying to go down .
Even if a minuscule amount is found that cannot be positively attributed to deliberate doping the current process produces a guilty until proven the individual can prove they are innocent ; in this case Bertie but could be anyone;.
This could be challenged legally so its a process that’s eventually bound to fail in most if not all cases by the "clen is in the pee so guilty" approach and does not serve the athlete ; governing body or WADA .
What is the alternative ? If there is none then it is what it is and the only conclusion is you accept the current unsatisfactory outcome and move on . Trying to convince someone they are right or wrong is pointless because it’s the unsatisfactory process that’s at fault tarring both innocent and guilty with the same brush with no way of resolving .0 -
Pokerface wrote:andrewjoseph wrote:Pokerface wrote:I wish that all those banging on about how strict liability means an automatic 2 year ban would read the rules on how that ban can be overturned depending on how the substance got into the body!!!!!!
The rules specify if a rider can prove it was not their fault, they can be cleared completely.
They do NOT specify how that proof must occur and to what standard, etc
My understanding is that the 2 year ban is automatic, implemented, then adjusted, depending on proof.
This did not happen.
I think you just have a flawed understanding.
Clauses 10.2 and 10.5 of the WADA code would appear to support his understanding.0 -
Steveorow wrote:Term1te jumped to the end point of the discussion I was trying to go down .
Even if a minuscule amount is found that cannot be positively attributed to deliberate doping the current process produces a guilty until proven the individual can prove they are innocent ; in this case Bertie but could be anyone;.
This could be challenged legally so its a process that’s eventually bound to fail in most if not all cases by the "clen is in the pee so guilty" approach and does not serve the athlete ; governing body or WADA .
Strict liability has already been challenged and upheld at CAS and the Swiss Federal Court. Clause 10.3 of the WADA code already takes account of substances that can easily be administered unintentionally. Perhaps if the tainted beef thing ever gets proved to be viable then clen would fall into that category but it would appear for now that WADA don't feel it does.0 -
I think the 'implemented, then adjusted' portion of what he is saying is off?
(this is the trouble with posting from your phone at the doctor's office. It's hard to cross-reference stuff and check facts!) :oops:0 -
This whole scenario is a bit like the gauntlet has been thrown down.
Real astute observations in this thread, that this can be a big setback to the anti-doping movement.
And this whole thing can be a bit of a war, now the press medias of Belgium, France and Italy indeed weigh in about this questionable action of absolving Contador from guilt and this will start the ball rolling towards appeal and is a plurality of nations versus if just Luxembourg was striking out or maybe if the press of the USA or UK were questioning this.
http://www.marca.com/2011/02/16/ciclism ... 57907.html
Italy says they attribute the decision to economic and political interests, Belgium says executive and judicial power influences the decision.
Spain won in football, World and Euro Cup, won a basketball world championship and one of their tennis players I think is one of the best in the world.... in regards to this.
"Los medios italianos reconocen que España debe estar "orgullosa" de todos los logros deportivos conseguidos en los últimos años, pero advierte de que "el exceso de defensa hace pensar que haya alguna nube escondida en los cielos de tantos triunfos" del deporte español."
Italian media recognises that Spain must be "proud" of all of it's sporting achievements in recent years, but advises that "the excess of defence makes one think there is a hidden (probably meaning something like black) cloud in theskies of those triumphs" of Spanish Sport.
Blah Blah, long post sorry.
Also, my point about when the UCI code is brought in about the rider claiming the substance was unknowingly ingested, hey, that is going to be the defence 99% of the time, they'll all say that so I don't think that is a good defence.
But the other countries getting involved is heartening to build an alliance for this to keep on rather than the possibility of which UCI might not want to prosecute and may still not want to, then, it'd be up to WADA.0 -
Pokerface wrote:....
I think you just have a flawed understanding.
Possibly, I just found this.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Legal_Library/Legal_Articles_On_The_Code/LEGAL_code_appendix.pdf
I can't cut and paste 'cos adobe won't let me.
10.2 (edit: pressed wring key)
It seems to be saying two year ban, then excuses taken into account before ban imposed. depending on how good the excuse is, ban may be reduced or eliminated.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0
