Contador Banned and Stripped of 2010 TDF

jzed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... e-CAS.html

iPete

An amicable ending, a backdated ban means he'll be racing again come August.

Paulie W

I wonder how the Giro and the Tour would have gone down without Contador in the race in 2011.

Scarponi gets a victory in the record books but none of the pleasure of standing atop the podium or anything else that goes with being a grand tour winner in the immediate aftermath of the race. But then was Scarponi really the best in the race if you remove Contador - 2nd place doesnt necessarily mean you're the second best rider? How would the Tour 2011 have progressed if riders hadnt had Contador to watch or to chase down in key stages? A system that allows a rider to continue for 18 months before a 'final' decision is made is deeply flawed!

notsoblue

Is 50 picograms per millilitre an effective dose of Clenbuterol? Would he have actually had any performance gain?

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Is 50 picograms per millilitre an effective dose of Clenbuterol? Would he have actually had any performance gain?

No, but you don't know if that was the maximum amount he had in his body (i.e. the tested him over consecutive days and the amount got less & less.

Hence it being a 'any amount at all' and you're out drug.

UndercoverElephant

notsoblue wrote:

Is 50 picograms per millilitre an effective dose of Clenbuterol? Would he have actually had any performance gain?

No, absolutely not. It doesn't appear in nature, though (they claim it's used in agriculture, but I would imagine the cost would put off many farmers). It's a possibility that somebody may have stored some blood away earlier in the season, with some doping residuals in, and then had a transfusion during the tour. Possibly. Allegedly.

Mr Plum

Schleck is 2010 tdf winner then. 18 months on, must be a hollow victory considering the circumstances in which he lost it on the day...

Paulie W - totally agree. We could have had a different winner in 2011 had Contador not been there in the first place.

Paulie W

notsoblue wrote:

Is 50 picograms per millilitre an effective dose of Clenbuterol? Would he have actually had any performance gain?

The suspicion is that Contador had a transfusion during the Tour and that this blood had traces of clenbuterol in from a period of sustained doping.

notsoblue

Ah gotcha. Well that puts the judgement in a different light really. At first it sounded a bit harsh, but as iPete says its actually quite amicable if he can get back to racing in august. Especially as it does give circumstantial evidence for sustained doping.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Ah gotcha. Well that puts the judgement in a different light really. At first it sounded a bit harsh, but as iPete says its actually quite amicable if he can get back to racing in august. Especially as it does give circumstantial evidence for sustained doping.

I think they've dated the ban such that he'll miss the Vuelta too.

Ultimately, rulez are rulez. They find any clen in your blood and you're busted, performance enhancing or not - thems the rulez.

That it took 500odd days (years) shows how badly cycling is organised.

DonDaddyD

I agree with the ban. I'm upset as Contador was a favourite of mine - On the spine of the faintess whisper you may hear me saying Contador as I scale Balham Hill. I shall have to find another name now.

All this doping makes watching the sport pointless. Well, if not pointless it does cheapen it. I'm less interested in the 2012 Tour De France now.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think they've dated the ban such that he'll miss the Vuelta too.

Really? Ouch.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Wasn't there also some talk at the time of the 2010 test that he had plasticizers in his blood (indicative of blood having been stored in a bag)? Did anything come of that?

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Wasn't there also some talk at the time of the 2010 test that he had plasticizers in his blood (indicative of blood having been stored in a bag)? Did anything come of that?

No.

CAS said it was possible, and the food contamination ( though not the beef) was also possible, and figured food contamination was probably more likely.

Either way, doesn't make a difference re the sentencing.

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think they've dated the ban such that he'll miss the Vuelta too.

Really? Ouch.

May have jumped the gun.

He's back in August 2012.

(forgot they're deducting the time he spent on a self-imposed ban)

jonginge

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Wasn't there also some talk at the time of the 2010 test that he had plasticizers in his blood (indicative of blood having been stored in a bag)? Did anything come of that?

No.

CAS said it was possible, and the food contamination ( though not the beef) was also possible, and figured food contamination was probably more likely.

Either way, doesn't make a difference re the sentencing.

CAS deduced that supplement contamination was most likely. IIRC there have been previous clen positives shown to be due to supplement contamination: those got a reduced ban based on the strict liabilty rule, not a 'no fault' verdict. The only way for 'no fault' would have been if beef had been shown to be the cause.

Gussio

A bad day for the reputation of cycling as a sport, in particular the TdF. Not good that Bertie wasn't banned from the off - if a "lesser" rider produced a postive result, would they have been allowed to ride in the 2011 TdF? I suspect not. Probably not going to paint the Spanish authorities in the best of lights, given the pressure they supposedly exerted to have the charges quashed.

Last year's race was particularly fascinating because (I think) the majority of riders were clean. Hopefully this will be (another) reminder to riders of the implications of doping.

rick_chasey

Gussio wrote:

A bad day for the reputation of cycling as a sport, in particular the TdF. Not good that Bertie wasn't banned from the off - if a "lesser" rider produced a postive result, would they have been allowed to ride in the 2011 TdF? I suspect not. Probably not going to paint the Spanish authorities in the best of lights, given the pressure they supposedly exerted to have the charges quashed.

Last year's race was particularly fascinating because (I think) the majority of riders were clean. Hopefully this will be (another) reminder to riders of the implications of doping.

Even worse for the Giro.

He'd already been known to have tested positive for 6 months and he still won that.

Re the 2nd point, I'd suggest some caution. All this doping stuff tells us is that we never really know, unless they test positive.

For all we know they're doping just differently.

DonDaddyD

I thought 2010 was clean and remember it being billed as the "cleanest race yet!"

You can never be too sure and so I for one will be watching 2012 TdF with a guarded heart.

Gussio

Most of my knowledge around doping comes from Paul Kimmage's book Rough Ride, which to be fair is not entirely unbiased. David Millar's book Racing Through the Dark last year provided a whole other viewpoint. Both books are work a read.

CiB

I'd be happy if the riders were allowed to stuff themselves full of every chemical going and race it out that way, with eyes popping and comedy limbs the size of tree trunks shoving them up the hills even quicker than they do now.

Rather than fight a losing battle, have a category that says 'Pharmaceuticals? Go for it lads' and be done with it. It's all relative and if a few die of toothpaste-viscosity blood it'll become self-policing inside a year or two.

t4tomo

CiB wrote:

I'd be happy if the riders were allowed to stuff themselves full of every chemical going and race it out that way, with eyes popping and comedy limbs the size of tree trunks shoving them up the hills even quicker than they do now.

Rather than fight a losing battle, have a category that says 'Pharmaceuticals? Go for it lads' and be done with it. It's all relative and if a few die of toothpaste-viscosity blood it'll become self-policing inside a year or two.

I know that's tongue in cheek but the problem is it not really the riders decision, its the team managers and peer pressure that forces/d them into doping in the past, with the riders themselves often unaware of the true consequences.

Read Millar's book or Pantani's biography, both very illuminating on the subject.

Ben6899

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree with the ban. I'm upset as Contador was a favourite of mine - On the spine of the faintess whisper you may hear me saying Contador as I scale Balham Hill. I shall have to find another name now.

All this doping makes watching the sport pointless. Well, if not pointless it does cheapen it. I'm less interested in the 2012 Tour De France now.

If doping cheapens the sport and the TdF less interesting, then how have you coped watching the sport for the last 20-years!? It's difficult, I know, but we have to focus on the positives brought to the sport by the clean riders.

pitchshifter

Poor Bert....


Wiggins Podiums!

dunnnooo

Ruling sounds like a load of bollocks to me, reading the articles on cyclingnews. To ban him for a doping, because he couldn't prove that he didn't deliberately ingest it, despite saying in the judgement that "both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytical findings, but were however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."

To me at least, that seems to be saying that no he isn't guilty, but rules are rules. Well, great, but rules can be outright wrong or inappropriate- no one writing rules can concieve all the scenearios that the rule must be applied to- and the overly rigid application of them can lead to bad decisions and injustices. Which personally I think has happened here. The court should have the descretion and the will to apply the rules reasonably to the case in hand, and not blindly follow them, irrespective of outcome.

Quite angry actually.

*goes to find full judgement*

rick_chasey

dunnnooo wrote:

Ruling sounds like a load of bollocks to me, reading the articles on cyclingnews. To ban him for a doping, because he couldn't prove that he didn't deliberately ingest it, despite saying in the judgement that "both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytical findings, but were however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."

To me at least, that seems to be saying that no he isn't guilty, but rules are rules. Well, great, but rules can be outright wrong or inappropriate- no one writing rules can concieve all the scenearios that the rule must be applied to- and the overly rigid application of them can lead to bad decisions and injustices. Which personally I think has happened here. The court should have the descretion and the will to apply the rules reasonably to the case in hand, and not blindly follow them, irrespective of outcome.

Quite angry actually.

*goes to find full judgement*

Sport's pointless without rules though.

In sport, rules maketh the game.

Can't retrospectively change the rules.

dunnnooo

Rick Chasey wrote:

dunnnooo wrote:

Ruling sounds like a load of bollocks to me, reading the articles on cyclingnews. To ban him for a doping, because he couldn't prove that he didn't deliberately ingest it, despite saying in the judgement that "both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytical findings, but were however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."

To me at least, that seems to be saying that no he isn't guilty, but rules are rules. Well, great, but rules can be outright wrong or inappropriate- no one writing rules can concieve all the scenearios that the rule must be applied to- and the overly rigid application of them can lead to bad decisions and injustices. Which personally I think has happened here. The court should have the descretion and the will to apply the rules reasonably to the case in hand, and not blindly follow them, irrespective of outcome.

Quite angry actually.

*goes to find full judgement*

Sport's pointless without rules though.

In sport, rules maketh the game.

Can't retrospectively change the rules.

Rules must be applied appropriately, else they become laughable and pointless.

bigmat

I do wonder if the way the ban has been justified by CAS is an attempt to make it appeal-proof i.e. emphasising the strict liability position and making no inferences regarding transfusions etc. If they really think that the most likely explanation is contaminated supplements, that's harsh on Contador (although as Rick says, rules are rules...)

iPete

dunnnooo wrote:

Ruling sounds like a load of bollocks to me, reading the articles on cyclingnews. To ban him for a doping, because he couldn't prove that he didn't deliberately ingest it, despite saying in the judgement that "both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytical findings, but were however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."

How can meat ingestion and a transfusion be equally unlikely then all of a sudden meat ingestion more likely? Given the equal possibility of accidental ingestion and foul play, the decision should stand. Shame it took so long.

rick_chasey

Given the amount of problems cycling has with doping in the past, with riders getting off scot free on technicalities (if they even get caught) and later admitting to being juiced up to the eyeballs, I'm not particularly sympathetic.

The riders know the rules about doping explicitly, and they're reminded about it regularly. Other riders abide by the rules about passing tests, so so should he.

I'd only be concerned about the motive etc if he was going to face criminal charges, which I'm pretty sure he won't be.

dunnnooo

iPete wrote:

dunnnooo wrote:

Ruling sounds like a load of bollocks to me, reading the articles on cyclingnews. To ban him for a doping, because he couldn't prove that he didn't deliberately ingest it, despite saying in the judgement that "both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytical findings, but were however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."

How can meat ingestion and a transfusion be equally unlikely then all of a sudden meat ingestion more likely? Given the equal possibility of accidental ingestion and foul play, the decision should stand. Shame it took so long.

They think it's a food supplement (presumably vitamin-pill type stuff?), not meat.