Contador June 6

Chung Mee

Court of Arbitration for Sport meets on June 6 to decide Contador's fate, as I'm sure you all know.

He could lose last year's TdF title, this year's Giro title (assuming he wins), all prize money so far this year, and a two-year ban.

I marvel at his ability to keep on going, I have always admired his style and athleticism and hope but dare not assume, that he will be cleared (of a few micrograms allegedly taken on a rest day when it would not have affected his performance on the Tour at all).

Contador Fan

ratherbeintobago

(of a few micrograms allegedly taken on a rest day when it would not have affected his performance on the Tour at all)

With all due respect, that misses the point entirely. Any detectable clenbuterol is a failed test; whether that was on a rest day, on a race day or out of competition is irrelevant. Zero tolerance means zero tolerance; if he is allowed to continue racing, regardless of whether his ingestion of clenbuterol was accidental or not then it will set a precedent, effectively legalising the drug - I cannot see how the UCI or WADA can afford to do that.

Having argued in the past that Contador must be clean or Garmin would not have been keen to sign him when Astana looked like they were going to fold, I am also disappointed by this, and also by the plasticiser rumours. He could so easily be the greatest stage racer of the current generation, assuming he is clean. However, it appears he isn't, and furthermore, the Spanish cycling federation appear to have learned nothing from their handling of the Valverde case.

Andy

BarryBonds

Quote I cannot see how the UCI or WADA can afford to do that.


I believe th precedent set is £25,000 dollars thats how they afford it.

cornoyemade

ratherbeintobago wrote:

(of a few micrograms allegedly taken on a rest day when it would not have affected his performance on the Tour at all)

With all due respect, that misses the point entirely. Any detectable clenbuterol is a failed test; whether that was on a rest day, on a race day or out of competition is irrelevant. Zero tolerance means zero tolerance; if he is allowed to continue racing, regardless of whether his ingestion of clenbuterol was accidental or not then it will set a precedent, effectively legalising the drug - I cannot see how the UCI or WADA can afford to do that.

Having argued in the past that Contador must be clean or Garmin would not have been keen to sign him when Astana looked like they were going to fold, I am also disappointed by this, and also by the plasticiser rumours. He could so easily be the greatest stage racer of the current generation, assuming he is clean. However, it appears he isn't, and furthermore, the Spanish cycling federation appear to have learned nothing from their handling of the Valverde case.

Andy

"if he is allowed to continue racing, regardless of whether his ingestion of clenbuterol was accidental or not then it will set a precedent, effectively legalising the drug. "

ACCIDENTAL INGESTION!?!?

I need to find out where Cavendish eats, get a job as a waiter there, and put in a few drops of clenbuterol before his next race, and then we will done with him for at least two years according to this logic. (anyone have cavy's address?)

Noclue

Just supposing AC is telling the truth, is it fair that a rider loses their livelihood because a spanish farmer decided to break the law and give cattle a drug to boost his profits?

I know the current rules are zero tolerance, but i do feel that there could be a better way of doing things to make them fairer, but obviously setting limits would just encourage people to try and use within those limits, so maybe it's better just to look at each case individually and try and draw a fair conclusion.

ratherbeintobago

cornoyemade wrote:

I need to find out where Cavendish eats, get a job as a waiter there, and put in a few drops of clenbuterol before his next race, and then we will done with him for at least two years according to this logic. (anyone have cavy's address?)

Whether you like it or not, that is what the rules say. From the WADA code:

The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:

2.1 The presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete's bodily specimen

2.1.1 It is each athletes personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers found to be present in their bodily specimens. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete's part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1 (my emphasis)

In any case, he can try to explain the clenbuterol away; what is harder is explaining the plasticisers.

Andy

bompington

Noclue wrote:

Just supposing AC is telling the truth, is it fair that a rider loses their livelihood because a spanish farmer decided to break the law and give cattle a drug to boost his profits?

I know the current rules are zero tolerance, but i do feel that there could be a better way of doing things to make them fairer, but obviously setting limits would just encourage people to try and use within those limits, so maybe it's better just to look at each case individually and try and draw a fair conclusion.

I know what the rules say about zero tolerance, and that the implication is that you have to be really, really careful what you eat; and I'm a million miles away from being a competitive elite athlete. You can bet that Contador, his team, his chef, everyone around him, know all about it too - that's the biggest reason why his excuse is so lame.

So yes, it is fair for him to lose his livelihood, for being an idiot; but more than that, it makes the likelihood of him being an honest idiot very, very small, and that only leaves the possibility that he is a cheat who didn't quite calculate things right.

BarryBonds

bompington wrote:

Noclue wrote:

Just supposing AC is telling the truth, is it fair that a rider loses their livelihood because a spanish farmer decided to break the law and give cattle a drug to boost his profits?

I know the current rules are zero tolerance, but i do feel that there could be a better way of doing things to make them fairer, but obviously setting limits would just encourage people to try and use within those limits, so maybe it's better just to look at each case individually and try and draw a fair conclusion.

I know what the rules say about zero tolerance, and that the implication is that you have to be really, really careful what you eat; and I'm a million miles away from being a competitive elite athlete. You can bet that Contador, his team, his chef, everyone around him, know all about it too - that's the biggest reason why his excuse is so lame.

So yes, it is fair for him to lose his livelihood, for being an idiot; but more than that, it makes the likelihood of him being an honest idiot very, very small, and that only leaves the possibility that he is a cheat who didn't quite calculate things right.

Right so lets get this right, as well as buying his food he must perform time consuming, expensive scientific test to personally ensure the Beef, milk, bottle of water has not been contaminated my a molecule that could lead to a positive test. Thats not realistic is it. Fair enough if hes got a cold and needs to check to packet but totally unreasonable and unrealistic to check the diet of the cow hes going to eat.

But thats what the rule says which is why its wrong

Monty Zoncolan

Surely all of these issues were debated here and elsewhere on the original thread?

The human body does not produce clenbuterol, therefore there is no acceptable level for a cyclist to have in his system.

Cyclists under the current regime of competition and testing therefore are responsible for what is in their system, whether they like it or not.

His story about the beef being brought all the way from Spain to end up on his plate (but not his colleagues wh were tested on the same day) is somewhat lacking in credibility. It's more plausible that he transfused his own previously drawn blood containing the clenbuterol on the rest day.

I happen to think that he would or at least very definitely could be the greatest stage racer of this generation. But that just makes it all the sadder that he seems to have felt the need to cheat.

As an aside, my recollection of the original investigation was that the plasticisers weren't being brought into it - ie. the charge to face only related to the clenbuterol. Is that not right?

bompington

BarryBonds wrote:

Right so lets get this right, as well as buying his food he must perform time consuming, expensive scientific test to personally ensure the Beef, milk, bottle of water has not been contaminated my a molecule that could lead to a positive test. Thats not realistic is it. Fair enough if hes got a cold and needs to check to packet but totally unreasonable and unrealistic to check the diet of the cow hes going to eat.

But thats what the rule says which is why its wrong

Yes, except that contrary to what some people are trying to make out, the world is not awash with contaminated foods - the proportion of spanish beef that has been found to contain clenbuterol, for example, is, errr, 0%.
I know there are cases of athletes who have taken stuff - and everyone agrees that it was accidentally - and been banned for it: Alain Baxter is one that comes to mind.
But what are you suggesting as the alternative? If strict liability is removed, then, given that dopers are clearly running rings round the authorities as it is, how easy is it going to be to, say, pump yourself full of clenbuterol and also soak a little bit into a piece of meat you leave in your fridge?

BarryBonds

Im suggesting that strict liability is fine as a concept until the equipment is able to detect such infantesimably (spelling) small amounts, molecules in fact that there is no way an athlete could be 100% certain they havent ingested through eating or touching something with minute amounts of potentialy career ending contaminents on it.

Im not saying Contador did or didnt cheat just that strict liability is a concept that was agreed on at a time when available test equipment and tests wasnt as sophisticated as it is now. A threshold is needed to ensure fairness.

smithy21

BarryBonds wrote:

Im suggesting that strict liability is fine as a concept until the equipment is able to detect such infantesimably (spelling) small amounts, molecules in fact that there is no way an athlete could be 100% certain they havent ingested through eating or touching something with minute amounts of potentialy career ending contaminents on it.

Im not saying Contador did or didnt cheat just that strict liability is a concept that was agreed on at a time when available test equipment and tests wasnt as sophisticated as it is now. A threshold is needed to ensure fairness.

I dont agree with this. It may be that some bad apples have ruined it for everyone but thats the way it is.

In Contador's case, if the whole Astana squad has very small traces of clenbuterol in their system his defence may hold water but the line about him importing dodgy spanish meat- come on.

LangerDan

A threshold would probably work as well as the 50% haematocrit limit- all it did is give a limit for the smarter dopers to aim at.

I'd have a little more sympathy for the situation if, for the past century, riders hadn't expended huge amounts of time and money trying to figure out undetectable methods of getting one over on their rivals.

Cleat Eastwood

BarryBonds wrote:

Im suggesting that strict liability is fine as a concept until the equipment is able to detect such infantesimably (spelling) small amounts, molecules in fact that there is no way an athlete could be 100% certain they havent ingested through eating or touching something with minute amounts of potentialy career ending contaminents on it.

Im not saying Contador did or didnt cheat just that strict liability is a concept that was agreed on at a time when available test equipment and tests wasnt as sophisticated as it is now. A threshold is needed to ensure fairness.

what threshold can there be for a chemical the body can't produce and a chemical found in IV bags.

Just sad that a rider of his ability will always compete under a cloud of suspicion now.

calvjones

BarryBonds wrote:

Im suggesting that strict liability is fine as a concept until the equipment is able to detect such infantesimably (spelling) small amounts, molecules in fact that there is no way an athlete could be 100% certain they havent ingested through eating or touching something with minute amounts of potentialy career ending contaminents on it.

Im not saying Contador did or didnt cheat just that strict liability is a concept that was agreed on at a time when available test equipment and tests wasnt as sophisticated as it is now. A threshold is needed to ensure fairness.

Fairness? Pro cyclists in particular have given up the right to a fair shake a long time ago.

If a sport is institutionally corrupt, and has been for decades you need measures that err on the side of harshness. I can think of 2 cyclists caught out by strict liability in the last 15 years where one could think OK, that was a bit harsh (Zirbel is one of them). Against how many who cheated, lied, covered up, besmirched others, adopted contrition, doped again...

Let's face it, how many sportspeople routinely exchange prestigious wins for future favours or hard cash? In how many sports does this happen at both team and individual level with the tacit acknowledgement of both parties plus the specialised media?

Fairness? Don't make me laugh.

TheBigBean

Strict liability is fine, but some people interpret it incorrectly. It essentially means that negligence is not an excuse. "I didn't know that my sleeping pills were banned" etc. The interesting thing in the Spanish report on Contador, and correct in my opinion, is that if it could be proved that it came from the beef, then Contador was not negligent i.e. eating a steak is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. This all assumes that you can prove it came from the steak (which is somewhat hard to believe), but I think goes some way to explain the problems the various parties have had in assessing the situation.

Toby_W

I think I will give up talking about cyclists implicated in doping scandals. I think the people who actually believe their hilarious excuses must also constantly be sending their bank details out to nigeria. I suppose the sad thing is they must be truly kind, forgiving and good people with a lot of trust.

Instead if someone could just tell me how to post a picture of the magic roundabout and have the music play as well I shall post that instead.

Cheers

Toby

GeorgeShaw

AFAIR, Contador's "theory" is not proven, either at a theoretical (scientific) or practical level.

He's just saying "I didn't dope, so it must be the meat", and the Spanish Fed have let him off on that basis.

DeadCalm

GeorgeShaw wrote:

AFAIR, Contador's "theory" is not proven, either at a theoretical (scientific) or practical level.

He's just saying "I didn't dope, so it must be the meat", and the Spanish Fed have let him off on that basis.

Didn't they say something about the biological passport showing that he was clean? So I guess he must have been a zero on the suspicious riders list?!?

disgruntledgoat

GeorgeShaw wrote:

AFAIR, Contador's "theory" is not proven, either at a theoretical (scientific) or practical level.

He's just saying "I didn't dope, so it must be the meat", and the Spanish Fed have let him off on that basis.

Precisely. Has anybody yet forced his defence to run down the trail of the meat (which he claims to have a receipt for) to prove their theory? If that isn't done surely you set a precedent where the mother in law/dog/tainted supplement/dehydration defence is accepted as gospel.

Pirahna

I had to resort to Google to find out about plasticisers and came up with this simple explanation. The first point is all that's needed.

http://www.medicalplast.com/index.asp?page=18

ratherbeintobago

As an aside, my recollection of the original investigation was that the plasticisers weren't being brought into it

The problem there is that the plasticiser test isn't validated for use as proof of doping per se; however, as I understand it, it can be used as supporting evidence of doping where other evidence exists.

I admit I don't know whether they're being taken into account in Contador's case.

Andy

Chung Mee

I'm currently re-reading "Bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle*.



Here's a novel thought: instead of trying to trace micrograms of this and that, why not let them all take drugs?

Answer? Because then they'd all have to, to keep up with the drugged-up Tigers at the front?

ok ok not a serious point and I'm sure someone else has already posted it somewhere.

*I have ~20 books on cycling and re-read them all at this time of year, every year.

Noclue

Pirahna wrote:

I had to resort to Google to find out about plasticisers and came up with this simple explanation. The first point is all that's needed.

http://www.medicalplast.com/index.asp?page=18

This bit?

...and to collect urine.

in other words the container he put his sample in could have contaminated his sample.

ratherbeintobago

in other words the container he put his sample in could have contaminated his sample.

The above link suggests that pthalates are found in flexible medical plastic items, such as catheter bags. Sample pots are not flexible. While I concede you could be right, I am sure that was considered before they started trialling the test for plasticisers.

Andy

Noclue

And i suppose there is the problem at the moment, any riders lawyer will argue that that could have happened.

Tusher

My understanding is that Contador cannot be charged with having traces of plasticiser in his blood as the test of rplasticisers had not been ratified at the time of the test.

ratherbeintobago

Noclue wrote:

And i suppose there is the problem at the moment, any riders lawyer will argue that that could have happened.

It's easy enough to check with the manufacturer of the sample pots whether they use pthalates at all. Also, the UCI will know whether any other samples taken in the same session were plasticiser +ve - if not, then things wouldn't look good for the contamination defence.

Tusher wrote:

My understanding is that Contador cannot be charged with having traces of plasticiser in his blood as the test of rplasticisers had not been ratified at the time of the test.

Linky

Cyclingnews wrote:

The test to detect the plasticizers was used at the Tour de France this summer for the first time. It has been available for more than a year, but is not yet validated for use. While an athlete could therefore not be sanctioned on the basis of this test alone, it could be used in conjunction with other evidence.

Andy

RichN95.

Tusher wrote:

My understanding is that Contador cannot be charged with having traces of plasticiser in his blood as the test of rplasticisers had not been ratified at the time of the test.

It's only a rumour that there were plasticizers, anyway. It's only been reported by a couple of proper newspapers. Maybe true, maybe not.

Could you knit an alternative blood storage unit?

Tusher

Easy. Water-resistant wool should do the trick.

Abdoujaparov

From what I've read, I reckon contador did knowingly take PEDs, but I have vague (and possibly incorrect?!) memories of someone saying contador had a pretty good case when the appeal was lodged - and that the appeal had to be made cos of political interference in the first ruling.

Is that right? The bit about contador having a good case... If so, anyone know who said it?