Contador CAS hearing
Comments
-
frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Funny how muffin man appears on this thread - haven't seen him since forever, since the other Contador thread and anything mentioning Armstrong.
All positives are detrimental to the sport. Would cycling be better off if if just buried the truth like most other sports are happy to do? Probably yes, who really knows. But you can't give a free pass to nice guys and only ban the pantomime villains like Ricco.
This whole thing is going to have a very bad outcome. Whatever the result half the people are going to be upset, and cycling will get more bad press either because a TdF winner is dumped, or because it's allowed a cheat to walk. There's no good result here.0 -
^^^^^
This.
There was a c.100 page thread about whether Bertie was guilty or not & we have the diet version here....
Surely the main issue is that the sport suffers, regardless of outcome?
I have quite strong opinions about what might or might not have happened, but they're pretty irrelevant.
Another TdF winner tests positive is the only thing that anyone will remember who doesn't follow the sport. We burn Bertie alive, or we stop testing entirely... Or we bicker whilst the sport we enjoy dies....
All three are quite valid responses....0 -
frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Funny how muffin man appears on this thread - haven't seen him since forever, since the other Contador thread and anything mentioning Armstrong.
Hey, its one of the biggest stories in doping in recent years, and we're all allowed opinions, or perhaps not. To say 'His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport', you're wording that like it is fact, whereas I and many others opinions would say the complete opposite of that on both counts of the sentence.
Why is it funny?? Lighten up
...not quite as funny as you posting photos of Contador in a suit and saying he's winning first round for style or whatever it was!! haha :roll:
Also, all this 'well liked' stuff, you are making out like everyone's riding around and then Contador rides up and everyone gets excited and smiley like a bunch of women at a wedding reception when a bit of Abba is chucked on!! Im sure he's nice enough, but who cares, he's a talented athlete yes, with great results, but with a dubious history and stance on things to boot.0 -
AS.com | Juan Gutiérrez | Lausanne | Alberto Contador struck another effective blow in Lausanne yesterday: the lie detector test.
The legal strategy of British lawyer Mike Morgan continues to move forward, that is, closed doors to the press and bold moves before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). If Contador offered a surprise on the first day by being present in the chamber from the outset of the hearing, yesterday he presented a report by two experts in the lie detector test. The polygraph, still not definitive proof, said that "Contador has not undergone any blood transfusion."
Contador faced the polygraph voluntarily on May 3 in California with specialist Louis Rovner. If you browse Rovner's website, you can learn that the lie detector test has a "scientific validity of 96%." And you'll find the following statement: "Dr. Rovner is the only polygraph expert in California who has had his tests admitted in criminal court."
The cyclist was subjected to Rovner's polygraph, which determined that Contador told the truth when he denied doping. The test was sent to another expert, John Palmatier, at the University of Florida, who verified the results. And he was recorded on a video that the defense has made available to the judges if they consider watching it applicable. Rovner testified yesterday in Lausanne and Palmatier participated via video-conferencing. They explained the method and its conclusions, but did not project the images.Contador is the Greatest0 -
New stuff I haven't read before. Scientific details too which are hard to refute.
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/ ... peng_3/TenContador is the Greatest0 -
Statistics are not scientific fact. The burden of proof to provide evidence of contamination is on Contador. The statements I've seen so far, and remember this is a closed hearing so whatever is being reported is done so via second hand accounts, show little evidence of Contador demonstrating proof that contamination occured via accidental ingestion.
As for the former post, anyone who uses a polygraph as proof is clutching at straws, especially given as there is no scientific proof of them being accurate and they are barred from use in court cases in the vast majority of countries in the world.0 -
It seems that cycling isnt the only thing that will be negatively hit by this. Whatever the outcome, there is something for Spain to be embarrassed about.
Either one of their top athletes is guilty of doping which may be a knock to national pride, or the rest of the european union will be interested in how a banned steroid managed to make it into their livestock and go undetected.
As it stands, both reported arguments are entirely plausible, believable and have "scientific experts" to back them up with a rational sounding argument. But you can make statistics prove anything you like...0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Contador faced the polygraph voluntarily on May 3 in California with specialist Louis Rovner. If you browse Rovner's website, you can learn that the lie detector test has a "scientific validity of 96%." And you'll find the following statement: "Dr. Rovner is the only polygraph expert in California who has had his tests admitted in criminal court."
This is irrelevant until we know exactly what questions Contador was asked...
"Did you dope before or during the TdF of 2009 Alberto?"
"Did you have a clenbuteral injections on the morning of the positive test?"
Both Yes/No answers but one will pass, one will not! (if....)
Saying "a polygraph shows he is not lying when he denies doping" is meaningless.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
andyp wrote:Statistics are not scientific fact. The burden of proof to provide evidence of contamination is on Contador. The statements I've seen so far, and remember this is a closed hearing so whatever is being reported is done so via second hand accounts, show little evidence of Contador demonstrating proof that contamination occured via accidental ingestion.
As for the former post, anyone who uses a polygraph as proof is clutching at straws, especially given as there is no scientific proof of them being accurate and they are barred from use in court cases in the vast majority of countries in the world.
Yep. A polygraph test proves he's either a. 96% likely clean, b. a sociopath or c. has a poor memory___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
KieranHardman wrote:...... how a banned steroid managed to make it into their livestock ...
Pedant here (with a little pharmacological knowledge) - clenbuterol is not a steroid, chemistry and mechanism of action is completely different.
On a different tack, anyone else think that Radioshack's Li Fuyu should have found a better lawyer? Clearly he is not in the same division, but Bertie is going to be back soon with or without a ban, but Li Fuyu's career is probably near over at 33. It doesn't seem unlikely that he would have spent some time in his native land, where clenbuterol definately is in the food chain.0 -
andyp wrote:Statistics are not scientific fact. The burden of proof to provide evidence of contamination is on Contador. The statements I've seen so far, and remember this is a closed hearing so whatever is being reported is done so via second hand accounts, show little evidence of Contador demonstrating proof that contamination occured via accidental ingestion.
As for the former post, anyone who uses a polygraph as proof is clutching at straws, especially given as there is no scientific proof of them being accurate and they are barred from use in court cases in the vast majority of countries in the world.
Don't tell Jeremy Kyle that
0 -
Or that he's spent a deal of time practicising, or that he doesn't experience anxiety about lying whilst hooked up to the machine, or that his lie is dissimulation, or that he believes some or all of what he's saying.....calvjones wrote:
Yep. A polygraph test proves he's either a. 96% likely clean, b. a sociopath or c. has a poor memory
Could someone please explain wtf "a scientific validity of 96%" means, please?
The word "scientific" appears quite superfluous & put in to impress. I'd be more interested in the work behind these numbers & why he's not monstrously famous & in demand. Someone who can detect all lies with 96% accuracy could be making a lot more money than hawking tests to CAS appeals, so I have a healthy scepticism. & this is an extraordinary claim, so I'd expect to see extraordinary evidence....0 -
Some people are as cool as a cucumber but I don't think I could ever pass a polygraph test regarding crucial information. There is probably good reason though as why legally it is not binding. We will see, glad Bertie can pass it fwiw.0
-
cajun_cyclist wrote:Some people are as cool as a cucumber but I don't think I could ever pass a polygraph test regarding crucial information. There is probably good reason though as why legally it is not binding. We will see, glad Bertie can pass it fwiw.
It's nothing to do with being 'cool', it's just a very inaccurate piece of equipment (about 60-70% accurate, bear in mind flipping a coin is 50% accurate). However, that's under lab conditions. When a lawyer has paid lots of money for a favourable result, I'm sure it's 96% likely to get that result.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:cajun_cyclist wrote:Some people are as cool as a cucumber but I don't think I could ever pass a polygraph test regarding crucial information. There is probably good reason though as why legally it is not binding. We will see, glad Bertie can pass it fwiw.
It's nothing to do with being 'cool', it's just a very inaccurate piece of equipment (about 60-70% accurate, bear in mind flipping a coin is 50% accurate). However, that's under lab conditions. When a lawyer has paid lots of money for a favourable result, I'm sure it's 96% likely to get that result.
This is all true, my second thoughts have been that some cyclists are control freaks and some will do anything to win and that does mean anything, taking it to the limits. They are already being high-rollers 'if' they are doping.
This is why, this article: "Column: Intrigue abounds in Contador doping case" really is more like this situation as much as any sporting accomplishment.Like a Hollywood film noir, Alberto Contador's devilishly complex doping case has mystery, intrigue, suspense, an as-yet-unidentified villain and a very uncertain outcome. ...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 61fb689d63
It's something like this.0 -
I could pass a polygraph test, and I'm willing to take a polygraph test to state categorically that I'm not lying when I say I could pass a polygraph test. In fact I'm willing to take a polygraph, to prove the truth of the polygraph ensuring I'm not lying about the ability to pass the polygraph. Now that's science.............
Seriously, there really are people that think these things are more reliable than the ducking chair test for witchcraft?0 -
frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether he is guilty of doping. Oh and his exclusion if he loses the case would not only be fair it would anything but detrimental to the sport.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether he is guilty of doping. Oh and his exclusion if he loses the case would not only be fair it would anything but detrimental to the sport.
This coming from Lance dirty sh*tbag Armstong's biggest fan...0 -
frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Ah, the Sam Warburton defence.....
(*ducks*)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:Moray Gub wrote:frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether he is guilty of doping. Oh and his exclusion if he loses the case would not only be fair it would anything but detrimental to the sport.
This coming from Lance dirty sh*tbag Armstong's biggest fan...
Grow up son.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
ddraver wrote:frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Ah, the Sam Warburton defence.....
(*ducks*)
Sam himself admitted he was wrong, though.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Moray Gub wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Moray Gub wrote:frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether he is guilty of doping. Oh and his exclusion if he loses the case would not only be fair it would anything but detrimental to the sport.
This coming from Lance dirty sh*tbag Armstong's biggest fan...
Grow up son.
Dont worry about explaining how for some reason its one rule for LA and another for Contador in you're little mind. 0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:Moray Gub wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Moray Gub wrote:frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether he is guilty of doping. Oh and his exclusion if he loses the case would not only be fair it would anything but detrimental to the sport.
This coming from Lance dirty sh*tbag Armstong's biggest fan...
Grow up son. Dont worry about explaining how for some reason its one rule for LA and another for Contador in you're little mind. Actually son that could quite easily be said of you ,here we have a cyclist probably caught bang to rights and getting his due punishment and yet he seems immune from your condemnation. Unlike when you foam at the mouth and gnash your teeeth when LA is mentioned...........why ? all becuase Bertie is an exciting rider......and i'd wager he helps old ladies across the road too . As for LA if all the allegations flying around actually amount to proving something and he cops his punishment then fair enough. At the moment its all p iss and wind. Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
RichN95 wrote:ddraver wrote:frenchfighter wrote:At the end of the day he is a phenomenal rider, an asset to the sport, thoroughly liked by most riders and managers and a bloody admirable bloke outside of cycling.
His exclusion would be unfair and detrimental to the sport.
Ah, the Sam Warburton defence.....
(*ducks*)
Sam himself admitted he was wrong, though.
I think it was more a reference to others using the "he is nice guy and Captain of Wales and its out of character " line to explain away his dangerous tackle (and it was btw).Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Frankie Andreu's take on the case;
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycli ... grity-line
A clear headed and sensible piece.0 -
andyp wrote:Frankie Andreu's take on the case;
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycli ... grity-line
A clear headed and sensible piece.
Excellent link. Thank you for that.0 -
Quite a few in denial, Contador most certainly has taken dope during his career, there is far too much association throughout alongside performances bettering those have clearly doped. Also there are numerous performances from him that question medical standards for natural human performance and would also clearly tend towards a doped athlete.
Now he is clearly not alone and so during his reign as the best GC cyclist, it (like with Armstrong) would have been th same if no-one had doped. He was just the best cyclist in the pack.
In this case the beef excuse is pure bullturd, completely different to the episodes of positives from contamination in China or Mexico. The coincidence is too high; of how this positive happened post rest day, only with him from the team and never to him in the past (even though he lives in Spain and would eat steak from these sources often). The WADA explanation of preseason Clenbuterol use followed by blood extraction and transfusion is by far the most plausible and regardless the chances of contaminated Spanish steak are so slight that this should be disregarded, and the how it entered the bloodstream should be irrelevant unless a further case is brought by Contador.
He failed A&B tests, he had Clenbuterol in his system, he should receive a 1 year ban, be stripped on the tour title and not contest the tour in 2012.0 -
plectrum wrote:Now he is clearly not alone and so during his reign as the best GC cyclist, it (like with Armstrong) would have been th same if no-one had doped. He was just the best cyclist in the pack.
That's a wildly inaccurate statement. It assumes that all athletes will respond in equal measure to doping, and that is not true. If you set aside medical/health/safety/ethical issues, and assume doping is safe and reasonable so it's OK for everyone to dope, what you end up with is not the best athlete, but the best responder to doping. This would be more so in a sport like cycling where endurance/power outweigh skill.0 -
He failed A&B tests, he had Clenbuterol in his system, he should receive a 1 year ban, be stripped on the tour title and not contest the tour in 2012.
If you believe he took clenbuterol deliberately then why are you advocating just a one year ban?0
