Can Contador win it?

LeicesterLad

stfc1 wrote:

skylla wrote:

stfc1 wrote:

skylla wrote:

possibly because the plast. test was not fully validated at the time

This is conjecture, the key word being "possibly".

and in addition the uci believes their case is strong enough ("the burden of proof is on the athlete to prove the source of those substances")

They have to say that, they'd be wasting everybody's time if they went to the CAS openly saying that they had a paper thin case and expected to lose.

it is not conjecture to say that the test was not validated at the time. It is conjecture to say that possibly they did not include these results exactly because of that reason.

So I'm not too sure what response you're after apart from the fact you you do not seem too convinced that the uci's efforts are laudable.

Paper-thin is not the case: a positive test is a positive test, no matter how much substance has been cumulatively detected over several days. Guilty of using PED is another matter, but I feel sorry for you if you find that difficult to get your head around.

I think I am probably being unduly obstinate here, especially as I have no beef (apologies) with you, so apologies if I've come across as a bit 'off'. I just get annoyed that the plasticisers thing gets thrown around this place (not by you) as if it were a cast iron fact when it is nothing of the sort. I have seen no evidence of it, nor have you, nor has anyone else here, and nor did the RFEC.

I also didn't mean that I necessarily thought the UCI's case was paper thin, just that ahead of the proceedings the UCI is obliged to talk up its case because otherwise it would make the appeal look like a waste of time.

For all that I do have one vested interest in that I hope Contador is cleared because he is a classy rider. Note, I do not hope that he 'gets away with it', I hope he is cleared (for the second time) based on a study of the evidence presented.

Anyway, I think there's a potentially explosive stage evolving somewhere in the Alps right now, so maybe I should concentrate on that instead

Ive been saying the same thing, but far to many Contador haters on here, so im keeping my mouth shut from now on, because alot of people only hear what they want to, and slate those they dislike for whatever reason.

skylla

stfc1 wrote:

skylla wrote:

stfc1 wrote:

skylla wrote:

possibly because the plast. test was not fully validated at the time

This is conjecture, the key word being "possibly".

and in addition the uci believes their case is strong enough ("the burden of proof is on the athlete to prove the source of those substances")

They have to say that, they'd be wasting everybody's time if they went to the CAS openly saying that they had a paper thin case and expected to lose.

it is not conjecture to say that the test was not validated at the time. It is conjecture to say that possibly they did not include these results exactly because of that reason.

So I'm not too sure what response you're after apart from the fact you you do not seem too convinced that the uci's efforts are laudable.

Paper-thin is not the case: a positive test is a positive test, no matter how much substance has been cumulatively detected over several days. Guilty of using PED is another matter, but I feel sorry for you if you find that difficult to get your head around.

I think I am probably being unduly obstinate here, especially as I have no beef (apologies) with you, so apologies if I've come across as a bit 'off'. I just get annoyed that the plasticisers thing gets thrown around this place (not by you) as if it were a cast iron fact when it is nothing of the sort. I have seen no evidence of it, nor have you, nor has anyone else here, and nor did the RFEC.

I also didn't mean that I necessarily thought the UCI's case was paper thin, just that ahead of the proceedings the UCI is obliged to talk up its case because otherwise it would make the appeal look like a waste of time.

For all that I do have one vested interest in that I hope Contador is cleared because he is a classy rider. Note, I do not hope that he 'gets away with it', I hope he is cleared (for the second time) based on a study of the evidence presented.

Anyway, I think there's a potentially explosive stage evolving somewhere in the Alps right now, so maybe I should concentrate on that instead

I have got no beef or vested interest in this case or any of the people involved in this case or on this forum, but thanks for pointing out the issue regarding previous 'arguments' re plasticisers on this forum. The following arguments might have already been pointed out by others, if so I apologise.

I hope I can say this here and of course I'm being devil's advocate, but if contador gets cleared 'he will get away' with a positive test, right? Or to state it in another way (assuming that the transfusion-argument is false), he is guilty of having ingested clen (regardless whether or not it was enough to be performance enhancing), right?. The case presented by the UCI will centre on whether he knowingly did so. Legally and scientifically it is very interesting case, but I feel sorry for Contador if he is going be made a scapegoat of procyling evils and WADA/UCI's outdated rules.

EDIT: sorry I realise now (only 15min later) I have been brandishing the term 'guilty' out-with its legal settings. Please ignore what I said, it was a train of thought with no destination of note.. Yes, let's focus on the race. Let the legs do the talking...

oscarbudgie

LeicesterLad wrote:

stfc1 wrote:

skylla wrote:

stfc1 wrote:

skylla wrote:

possibly because the plast. test was not fully validated at the time

This is conjecture, the key word being "possibly".

and in addition the uci believes their case is strong enough ("the burden of proof is on the athlete to prove the source of those substances")

They have to say that, they'd be wasting everybody's time if they went to the CAS openly saying that they had a paper thin case and expected to lose.

it is not conjecture to say that the test was not validated at the time. It is conjecture to say that possibly they did not include these results exactly because of that reason.

So I'm not too sure what response you're after apart from the fact you you do not seem too convinced that the uci's efforts are laudable.

Paper-thin is not the case: a positive test is a positive test, no matter how much substance has been cumulatively detected over several days. Guilty of using PED is another matter, but I feel sorry for you if you find that difficult to get your head around.

I think I am probably being unduly obstinate here, especially as I have no beef (apologies) with you, so apologies if I've come across as a bit 'off'. I just get annoyed that the plasticisers thing gets thrown around this place (not by you) as if it were a cast iron fact when it is nothing of the sort. I have seen no evidence of it, nor have you, nor has anyone else here, and nor did the RFEC.

I also didn't mean that I necessarily thought the UCI's case was paper thin, just that ahead of the proceedings the UCI is obliged to talk up its case because otherwise it would make the appeal look like a waste of time.

For all that I do have one vested interest in that I hope Contador is cleared because he is a classy rider. Note, I do not hope that he 'gets away with it', I hope he is cleared (for the second time) based on a study of the evidence presented.

Anyway, I think there's a potentially explosive stage evolving somewhere in the Alps right now, so maybe I should concentrate on that instead

Ive been saying the same thing, but far to many Contador haters on here, so im keeping my mouth shut from now on, because alot of people only hear what they want to, and slate those they dislike for whatever reason.

Considering you thought Contador gained his advantage lasyt year by taking clenbuterol while the race was on and have therefore shown that you know f all about waht happened yes please keep your mouth shut

dennisn

Well, from todays result I think this debate is pretty much over.

gabriel959

indeed - he was cooked...

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/20 ... 64537.html

rockmount

oscarbudgie wrote:

Considering you thought Contador gained his advantage lasyt year by taking clenbuterol while the race was on and have therefore shown that you know f all about waht happened yes please keep your mouth shut

Exactly ... if you wanted to use clenbuterol ... considering it's benefit in building lean muscle, and rapid bloodstream dissipation ... I guess you would use it well before your event, then when a safe period had elapsed, store some well packed "clean" (as per current test capability .. oops) blood for a nice boost on a rest day ... just saying like ...

Mettan

dennisn wrote:

Well, from todays result I think this debate is pretty much over.

Yep.

moray_gub

Mettan wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Well, from todays result I think this debate is pretty much over.

Yep.

I think the ASO and Christian Prudhomme will be delighted with that not good for him to win and lose it in a few months time.

meanmrmustard

You don't think he was bluffing today? :P

jerry3571

Come on kids; after the tens of positive doping cases we've had in past, this is all part of the game. Contador, shreks, then you get Basso, Vino etc etc it's all the same.
It's a little boring hearing people here defend thier favourite "Pin Up".
Ac and evans, shreks et all just haven't been caught yet unless they get away with it like LA did.
The top riders get around the regs by using all the methods they can and if they get sloppy or don't have a "special" agreement with the right people then they are open to getting caught. Cycling has been doping since the 1890's so lets get over this "who is" or "who isn't".
The problems is the Doping Control is always one step behind or there are special arrangements made (as Tyler Hamilton has mentioned about LA getting a positive test during a Tour de Suisse at one time and Lance not being worried about it).

Come on kids, todays stage was raced over three 2000m+ Mountains; you got to dope just to do the ride and get up the next morning and do the same again.

-Jerry

LeicesterLad

jerry3571 wrote:

Come on kids; after the tens of positive doping cases we've had in past, this is all part of the game. Contador, shreks, then you get Basso, Vino etc etc it's all the same.
It's a little boring hearing people here defend thier favourite "Pin Up".
Ac and evans, shreks et all just haven't been caught yet unless they get away with it like LA did.
The top riders get around the regs by using all the methods they can and if they get sloppy or don't have a "special" agreement with the right people then they are open to getting caught. Cycling has been doping since the 1890's so lets get over this "who is" or "who isn't".
The problems is the Doping Control is always one step behind or there are special arrangements made (as Tyler Hamilton has mentioned about LA getting a positive test during a Tour de Suisse at one time and Lance not being worried about it).

Come on kids, todays stage was raced over three 2000m+ Mountains; you got to dope just to do the ride and get up the next morning and do the same again.

-Jerry

+1 think some just like to deny doping exist beyond Contador to be honest.

calvjones

LeicesterLad wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Come on kids; after the tens of positive doping cases we've had in past, this is all part of the game. Contador, shreks, then you get Basso, Vino etc etc it's all the same.
It's a little boring hearing people here defend thier favourite "Pin Up".
Ac and evans, shreks et all just haven't been caught yet unless they get away with it like LA did.
The top riders get around the regs by using all the methods they can and if they get sloppy or don't have a "special" agreement with the right people then they are open to getting caught. Cycling has been doping since the 1890's so lets get over this "who is" or "who isn't".
The problems is the Doping Control is always one step behind or there are special arrangements made (as Tyler Hamilton has mentioned about LA getting a positive test during a Tour de Suisse at one time and Lance not being worried about it).

Come on kids, todays stage was raced over three 2000m+ Mountains; you got to dope just to do the ride and get up the next morning and do the same again.

-Jerry

+1 think some just like to deny doping exist beyond Contador to be honest.

I'm sorry but if plucky little Tommy V(TM) is doping his way up an Alp, I'm taking my ball and going home.

dennisn

jerry3571 wrote:

Come on kids, todays stage was raced over three 2000m+ Mountains; you got to dope just to do the ride and get up the next morning and do the same again.

-Jerry

I disagree that you have to dope to climb in the mountains. I have ridden the Bicycle Tour of Colorado six times. Each year it has climbed, basically, a 10,000 to 12,000 foot pass every day and sometimes 2 a day. This for 6 straight days. We slept in tents, on air mattresses, at high altitudes, enduring cold at night and hign temps during the day, eating barely passable food during the day's ride, scrounging for whatever food we could find in the small towns that were the overnight stops. Add to this pitching your own tent and packing it up each day, then riding anywhere from 60 to 100 miles over some of the highest passes you'll ever ride a bike over. I've seen people of all shapes and sizes do this year after year. So don't give me that crap about HAVING to do drugs to make it.

Crankbrother

My friends have ridden those climbs with hangovers and carrying a backpack ... and then cycled on the next day ... But i guess it's easier to accuse everyone of dopingto make younfeel bettervabout your lack of achievement ...

If you don't like tha actors don't watch the show ...

Gingerflash

"But i guess it's easier to accuse everyone of dopingto make younfeel bettervabout your lack of achievement ... "

Like Paul Kimmage?

It's raining - i'm not training. It's windy - I'm not training. Girlfriend in town - not training. Then drops out of all early season races at very early points. In the summer when he gets his backside handed to him by everyone else, he concludes that they're ALL doping.

cajun_cyclist

dennisn wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Come on kids, todays stage was raced over three 2000m+ Mountains; you got to dope just to do the ride and get up the next morning and do the same again.

-Jerry

I disagree that you have to dope to climb in the mountains. I have ridden the Bicycle Tour of Colorado six times. Each year it has climbed, basically, a 10,000 to 12,000 foot pass every day and sometimes 2 a day. This for 6 straight days. We slept in tents, on air mattresses, at high altitudes, enduring cold at night and hign temps during the day, eating barely passable food during the day's ride, scrounging for whatever food we could find in the small towns that were the overnight stops. Add to this pitching your own tent and packing it up each day, then riding anywhere from 60 to 100 miles over some of the highest passes you'll ever ride a bike over. I've seen people of all shapes and sizes do this year after year. So don't give me that crap about HAVING to do drugs to make it.

And too, back in the old days, 531 Reynolds tubing is good but some of those bikes must have been heavy. Surely, not as light as today. You were also carrying a lot of equipment and supplies and baggage.

Just get a granny gear!!

fleshtuxedo

Sleeping in tents, on air mattresses, at high altitudes, enduring cold at night and high temps during the day, eating barely passable food during the day's ride, scrounging for whatever food we could find in the small towns that were the overnight stops?

We used to DREAM of that!

dilemna

FleshTuxedo wrote:

Sleeping in tents, on air mattresses, at high altitudes, enduring cold at night and high temps during the day, eating barely passable food during the day's ride, scrounging for whatever food we could find in the small towns that were the overnight stops?

We used to DREAM of that!

singlespeedexplosif

pmsl at comparison of le Tour, and some blokes riding some hills with rucksacks.

btw, I have my salt and pepper ready. Am I allowed a bit of mustard? Cuddles has fully deserved it over the past couple of days.