Contador Ruling

Richj · February 2012

Gazzaputt wrote:

I'll say it again surely financially he must be up the swan.

Read that his legal defence could be 3m euros. With the UCI after him and having to pay back all prize money and also now no income things can't be good.

Can they claim back the prize money?? As in who has it. Prize money is usually divided up among the riders on the team and all the support staff, I don't know but there is a high chance Contador didn't see much of the prize money he won.

TheBigBean · February 2012

I could be wrong (as I was about the two year suspension), but I expect CAS to be quite lenient when it comes to costs. A few reasons:
1. It was not Contador's fault he was initially cleared by the Spanish federation. I could easily see a bill landing on the Spanish federation's desk.
2. UCI / WADA didn't assist the Spanish federation despite a request for help.
3. CAS accepted that a significant reason for the delay (and therefore legal costs) was UCI/WADA putting forward the blood transfusion case. As this case, in the end, was considered highly unlikely, I can't see CAS making Contador pay for it.
4. There was no evidence of deliberate doping.

So, I reckon (and no expertise here) he will be in for his own legals, a small portion of UCI/WADA legals, the prize money (he probably didn't receive the tour de france prize) and a fine between €0m and €5m. However, during this time he has been earning €5m a year, so approximately €7.5m since the tour. So, overall he will probably survive.

pat1cp · February 2012

I've thought for a while that Bertie should probably get a suspension. He tested positive after all.

Watching the press conference tonight I asked myself, "did he cheat?", doubt it.

But then Alain Baxter lost an olympic medal for snorting a Canadian Vix Sinus, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Tusher · February 2012

Richj wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

I'll say it again surely financially he must be up the swan.

Read that his legal defence could be 3m euros. With the UCI after him and having to pay back all prize money and also now no income things can't be good.

Can they claim back the prize money?? As in who has it. Prize money is usually divided up among the riders on the team and all the support staff, I don't know but there is a high chance Contador didn't see much of the prize money he won.

They didn't in the Landis case.

Anonymous · February 2012

TheBigBean wrote:

I could be wrong (as I was about the two year suspension), but I expect CAS to be quite lenient when it comes to costs. A few reasons:
1. It was not Contador's fault he was initially cleared by the Spanish federation. I could easily see a bill landing on the Spanish federation's desk.
2. UCI / WADA didn't assist the Spanish federation despite a request for help.
3. CAS accepted that a significant reason for the delay (and therefore legal costs) was UCI/WADA putting forward the blood transfusion case. As this case, in the end, was considered highly unlikely, I can't see CAS making Contador pay for it.4. There was no evidence of deliberate doping.

So, I reckon (and no expertise here) he will be in for his own legals, a small portion of UCI/WADA legals, the prize money (he probably didn't receive the tour de france prize) and a fine between €0m and €5m. However, during this time he has been earning €5m a year, so approximately €7.5m since the tour. So, overall he will probably survive.

Contador's defence was considered equally unlikely, and CAS heard ALL evidence in that.

Tend to agree costs might be limited though.

moray_gub · February 2012

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

What do you care that he cares ? if wants to comment on him posting pictures them then leave him to it he is not doing any harm is he ?

Because there's no need for anyone to be a dick. That includes you.

Not so......... you can be a dick all you want i'm easy with it.

Anonymous · February 2012

Level of bickering pre-hearing is shocking!
Some of words used by Contador's team in hearing were v inflammatory (particularly on supplements angle)

I don't agree with the decision that transfusion unlikely - that decision looks to have been made because to have happened as per WADA's proposed events, a big mistake would've been made in a very careful process. But we know athletes only get caught when they f up!! Plus, the extra evidence re: plasma transfusion could've been key - very surprising that CAS refused that (potentially due to having decided supplements possible, meat not - therefore case over)

Surprised that CAS seemed to care about the lie detector test. WTF?! Suspect Bertie may have got off if he'd done one for supplements too! Confirmed that lots of plasticisers in his blood - but not an approved test yet, hope WADA follow through on this soon.

Amid all the protestations from Dirty Bertie & media chanting his name as a press conference (!!!) the key findings from CAS are that Contador tested positive for Clenbuterol and his explanation of contanimated meat is rubbish. Boom. Bye.

Anonymous · February 2012

frenchfighter wrote:

Read the report. All of it. It's pretty good.

I have. And it is. You only report half of it though (and state it as fact), which makes you look a biased idiot.

moray_gub · February 2012

frenchfighter wrote:

Need a load more riders like this.

The last thing cycling needs at the moment is more dope cheats like him, the best outcome here is if he is a man of his word he should do what he said he was gonna do and dont come back to the sport.

cal_stewart · February 2012

Its over til he rides again. Choppered made a good point above ref berties excuse.

cajun_cyclist · February 2012

frenchfighter wrote:

Getty

I heard if he could not make the press conference, he was going to have Cristiano Ronaldo or Luis Suarez sit in for him.

cajun_cyclist · February 2012

Er, to the idea of posting pix, remember that is a bit of FF's forte here, he's posted a lot of pix of different people I think over all the time most of us have been here but of course, he holds AC in high esteem. I've been told about posts I've made, not here but elsewhere, so FF should not feel you know, too alone in doing this stuff here.

I don't hold FF's position and when I first came across FF's posts, I thought they were OTT, maybe they are, but the poster him/herself seems alright, I think it's a sensitive situation. I hope FF doesn't take to heart anyone who is too critical, I mean a person may be criticising a sport figure but not each other. I have at times and will again, been pretty upset and vocal at the way some events go in the sporting world.

CAS, WADA and possibly if the National body of USADA holds up, these are folks you don't want to deal with. I'm seeing the Hog and others see USADA as a paper tiger, talking about Qui Tam or something, but the anti-dopers do not seem to be someone you want to fool with in regards to LA.

TMR · February 2012

Choppered wrote:

I have. And it is. You only report half of it though (and state it as fact), which makes you look a biased idiot.

Why don't you report the other half then? Failing to do so just makes you look like a biased idiot.

Ron Stuart · February 2012

Doobz wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

Just add Bertie.

Like this

Nice one yes

Popped into Stan's Cycles yesterday in Shrewsbury as mentioned by Harmon during his commentary of the Tour of Qatar and they had one of these on sale with the Record Electronic gears same wheels etc, I can't remember the exact price but it was £10,000 something :shock: No comments about dentists please :!:

mfin · February 2012

cajun_cyclist wrote:

Er, to the idea of posting pix, remember that is a bit of FF's forte here, he's posted a lot of pix of different people I think over all the time most of us have been here but of course, he holds AC in high esteem. I've been told about posts I've made, not here but elsewhere, so FF should not feel you know, too alone in doing this stuff here.

I don't hold FF's position and when I first came across FF's posts, I thought they were OTT, maybe they are, but the poster him/herself seems alright, I think it's a sensitive situation. I hope FF doesn't take to heart anyone who is too critical, I mean a person may be criticising a sport figure but not each other. I have at times and will again, been pretty upset and vocal at the way some events go in the sporting world.

CAS, WADA and possibly if the National body of USADA holds up, these are folks you don't want to deal with. I'm seeing the Hog and others see USADA as a paper tiger, talking about Qui Tam or something, but the anti-dopers do not seem to be someone you want to fool with in regards to LA.

...yeah, seems alright, but when he/she metaphorically 'stands on a rake' and its pointed out to them in a humoured fashion they then decide to place a personal attack, infer someone could be 'thick' and that they have personality problems, then they disappear as if they hold some 'moral high ground'. Plus, pretty much declaring their opinions and posting are somehow 'more valid', or more 'thought out'. ....All of which could have been cleared up with one small apology for being out of order by throwing insults and a 'yeeeah, fairdoos, it was funny', or to put it as someone else put it, showing a bit of humility.

As regards the case, now mentioned here is the non-investigation of the blood transfusion possibilities from the 'plasticizer angle' ...that doesnt sit very well with me, seeing as he was supposed to have had plasticizers detected.

TheBigBean · February 2012

Choppered wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I could be wrong (as I was about the two year suspension), but I expect CAS to be quite lenient when it comes to costs. A few reasons:
1. It was not Contador's fault he was initially cleared by the Spanish federation. I could easily see a bill landing on the Spanish federation's desk.
2. UCI / WADA didn't assist the Spanish federation despite a request for help.
3. CAS accepted that a significant reason for the delay (and therefore legal costs) was UCI/WADA putting forward the blood transfusion case. As this case, in the end, was considered highly unlikely, I can't see CAS making Contador pay for it.4. There was no evidence of deliberate doping.

So, I reckon (and no expertise here) he will be in for his own legals, a small portion of UCI/WADA legals, the prize money (he probably didn't receive the tour de france prize) and a fine between €0m and €5m. However, during this time he has been earning €5m a year, so approximately €7.5m since the tour. So, overall he will probably survive.

Contador's defence was considered equally unlikely, and CAS heard ALL evidence in that.

Tend to agree costs might be limited though.

Yes, agree that Contador will probably have to cover costs of the UCI / WADA associated with the beef. I think I was looking at it from point of view where Contador has to pay all the legal fees, and working back from there.

andrewjoseph · February 2012

I still don't get the supplements bit. If it were supplements, they would be in his blood on lots of occasions, they would be in the blood of many athletes. He would not have known about it and this could be the reason they show in his pre steak tests (as they have, apparently) .

But, they would be there after as well, and they are not.

Also, if it were supplements that only Bertie was taking (out of the whole peleton!?), it would be easy to track down and show.

I feel, (based on no evidence at all), that suspicions were raised, hence the special testing. The meat defence was a nonsense and his lawyers were stupid to not also consider supplements (But that would have been tested). The plasticisers couldn't be used legally. CAS could see he cheated but could not use some of the evidence given, so used a cop out of supplement contamination.

So, all done and explained, no need to go any further. ;-)

rick_chasey · February 2012

CBA to read all of this.

You know he got dropped by Saxo?

avoidingmyphd · February 2012

andrewjoseph wrote:

I still don't get the supplements bit. If it were supplements, they would be in his blood on lots of occasions, they would be in the blood of many athletes. He would not have known about it and this could be the reason they show in his pre steak tests (as they have, apparently) .

But, they would be there after as well, and they are not.

Also, if it were supplements that only Bertie was taking (out of the whole peloton!?), it would be easy to track down and show.

I feel, (based on no evidence at all), that suspicions were raised, hence the special testing. The meat defence was a nonsense and his lawyers were stupid to not also consider supplements (But that would have been tested). The plasticisers couldn't be used legally. CAS could see he cheated but could not use some of the evidence given, so used a cop out of supplement contamination.

So, all done and explained, no need to go any further. ;-)

I think the short version is that contaminated supplements is not an excuse whereas contaminated beef is, because the WADA code contains provisions about athletes' responsibilities for checking ingredients above and beyond what it says on the packet and those provisions catch supplements but not beef. So they weren't stupid not to consider supplements - on the contrary it would have been hoisting the white flag to concede the supplements point. If they could prove they were contaminated now, the WADA code makes it their responsibility to do so before ingesting them.

Mettan · February 2012

andrewjoseph wrote:

The plasticisers couldn't be used legally. CAS could see he cheated but could not use some of the evidence given, so used a cop out of supplement contamination.

+ 1 Agreed.

TheBigBean · February 2012

I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.

If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.

skylla · February 2012

Mettan wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

The plasticisers couldn't be used legally. CAS could see he cheated but could not use some of the evidence given, so used a cop out of supplement contamination.

+ 1 Agreed.

my thoughts

TheBigBean · February 2012

Also, the platicisers test hasn't been sanctioned by WADA because they don't believe it is reliable. You can't hang a man on an unreliable test that peaked the day before he failed a drugs test.

skylla · February 2012

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.

If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.

Perhaps when other pre-beef samples were scrutinised they were found to be + for clen too. Remember, there were several samples tested after the initial +

TheBigBean · February 2012

skylla wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.

If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.

Perhaps when other pre-beef samples were scrutinised they were found to be + for clen too. Remember, there were several samples tested after the initial +

He failed the tests on the subsequent days for clen in a manner consistent with the original amount slowly being excreted by the body.

Damn him for his negligence in allowing clen to enter his body, but at least give the lawyers and all conerned some credit that they haven't spent 18 months arguing about something that simple.

mfin · February 2012

avoidingmyphd wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

I still don't get the supplements bit. If it were supplements, they would be in his blood on lots of occasions, they would be in the blood of many athletes. He would not have known about it and this could be the reason they show in his pre steak tests (as they have, apparently) .

But, they would be there after as well, and they are not.

Also, if it were supplements that only Bertie was taking (out of the whole peloton!?), it would be easy to track down and show.

I feel, (based on no evidence at all), that suspicions were raised, hence the special testing. The meat defence was a nonsense and his lawyers were stupid to not also consider supplements (But that would have been tested). The plasticisers couldn't be used legally. CAS could see he cheated but could not use some of the evidence given, so used a cop out of supplement contamination.

So, all done and explained, no need to go any further. ;-)

I think the short version is that contaminated supplements is not an excuse whereas contaminated beef is, because the WADA code contains provisions about athletes' responsibilities for checking ingredients above and beyond what it says on the packet and those provisions catch supplements but not beef. So they weren't stupid not to consider supplements - on the contrary it would have been hoisting the white flag to concede the supplements point. If they could prove they were contaminated now, the WADA code makes it their responsibility to do so before ingesting them.

So, what it stinks of is 'using the excuse most likely to get you off' and not 'genuinely stating the believed reason for its presence'... is that a fair conclusion from the above??

TheBigBean · February 2012

mfin wrote:

avoidingmyphd wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

I still don't get the supplements bit. If it were supplements, they would be in his blood on lots of occasions, they would be in the blood of many athletes. He would not have known about it and this could be the reason they show in his pre steak tests (as they have, apparently) .

But, they would be there after as well, and they are not.

Also, if it were supplements that only Bertie was taking (out of the whole peloton!?), it would be easy to track down and show.

I feel, (based on no evidence at all), that suspicions were raised, hence the special testing. The meat defence was a nonsense and his lawyers were stupid to not also consider supplements (But that would have been tested). The plasticisers couldn't be used legally. CAS could see he cheated but could not use some of the evidence given, so used a cop out of supplement contamination.

So, all done and explained, no need to go any further. ;-)

I think the short version is that contaminated supplements is not an excuse whereas contaminated beef is, because the WADA code contains provisions about athletes' responsibilities for checking ingredients above and beyond what it says on the packet and those provisions catch supplements but not beef. So they weren't stupid not to consider supplements - on the contrary it would have been hoisting the white flag to concede the supplements point. If they could prove they were contaminated now, the WADA code makes it their responsibility to do so before ingesting them.

So, what it stinks of is 'using the excuse most likely to get you off' and not 'genuinely stating the believed reason for its presence'... is that a fair conclusion from the above??

That is one interpretation (and one I think UCI/WADA put forward), but given how paranoid riders are about, and the precautions they take with, contaminated supplements, I would imagine that Contador's team genuinely didn't believe the contaminated supplement scenario. It is worth noting that only one person has ever failed a test for clen because of a contaminated supplement in contrast to quite a few that have failed because of the meat (from other countries). Contador may, therefore, have actually believed the meat story.

ddraver · February 2012

When those 2 South African Rugby players were done for Clen, they were able to find the samples, test them and show that they had been contaminated. Why could nt this have happened here? (during the months of silence before the leak). NOBODY talked about supplements before this decision!

lemuppet · February 2012

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.

If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.

In the CAS report, section II item 16, it mentions a blood test taken on the morning of the 20th containing clenbuterol at a level of 1ug/ml.

frenchfighter · February 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0nLdGh0rM0

Contador Ruling

Comments

Categories