Contador Banned and Stripped of 2010 TDF

dunnnooo

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Personally, I don't think it's right that one person should be penalised because another did something wrong. Each case should be taken on it's own specific merits, and not persecuted because of the past.

He's not facing criminal charges, but he's still getting a hefty punishment- he's been stripped of two of the biggest prizes in cycling, and may be getting a 2.4million euro fine. That's severe when the court, after 400 pages of expert evidence, doesn't think he's doped.

rick_chasey

dunnnooo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Personally, I don't think it's right that one person should be penalised because another did something wrong. Each case should be taken on it's own specific merits, and not persecuted because of the past.

He's not facing criminal charges, but he's still getting a hefty punishment- he's been stripped of two of the biggest prizes in cycling, and may be getting a 2.4million euro fine. That's severe when the court, after 400 pages of expert evidence, doesn't think he's doped.

You are (one is) totally responsible for what ends up in your (one's) body.

The rules of cycling, along with - don't take the train, cycle the route given, don't ride bunch starts with aero bars, includE - don't ride with any clenbuterol in your body.

He did, and the punishment is 2 years.

That's all there is to it. Everything else is just feelings getting in the way.

DonDaddyD

Ben6899 wrote:

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.

To be honest 20 years ago, being 9, I wasn't really aware, interested or truly understood the implications of doping. Back then it was about cool looking dudes riding bikes really fast, which is all I wanted to do.

I don't like watching a sport where you can't be sure if the winner at the end of the race is really the winner or a cheat. Imagine in boxing if the winner and champion was always disputed after the fight had been won and the belt passed around from person to person with the cleanest blood. It almost makes it pointless.

In the end Schleck winning the 2010 TdF means nothing, so for me the 2010 TdF means nothng and the next valid question has to be - and I remember another poster poised this in another thread - what is the next guy in GC taking to keep up with him?

I apologise for my cynicism.

rick_chasey

Cycling's probably not for you then DDD.

You have to like a sport that has it all. The grotty seedy bits as well as the beautiful highs.

When you watch it for a while, I've found you slowly stop caring about the juice and start enjoying the racing.

After all, that matters more than the result a lot of the time - certainly in terms of enjoyment.

They'll never take Pantani's '98 Tour away, even if he was on the juice. I still remember the feelings I had when I watched it, and I always will.

dunnnooo

Rick Chasey wrote:

dunnnooo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Personally, I don't think it's right that one person should be penalised because another did something wrong. Each case should be taken on it's own specific merits, and not persecuted because of the past.

He's not facing criminal charges, but he's still getting a hefty punishment- he's been stripped of two of the biggest prizes in cycling, and may be getting a 2.4million euro fine. That's severe when the court, after 400 pages of expert evidence, doesn't think he's doped.

You are (one is) totally responsible for what ends up in your (one's) body.

The rules of cycling, along with - don't take the train, cycle the route given, don't ride bunch starts with aero bars, includE - don't ride with any clenbuterol in your body.

He did, and the punishment is 2 years.

That's all there is to it. Everything else is just feelings getting in the way.

Rules are there to make the sport fair on each contestant. When their application makes is unfair on a contestant(s), what is the point of having them? The rule is there to stop people doping, and give a level, fair playing field. The court does not think he's doped, on lenghty (!) consideration. Why apply the rule? That's unfair. And, for the record, this type of discretion is generally formalised within legal systems- rules are rarely sufficient on their own, and every court I've studied has had some system to allow the judges to avoid stupid or unfair results.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cycling's probably not for you then DDD.

You have to like a sport that has it all. The grotty seedy bits as well as the beautiful highs.

When you watch it for a while, I've found you slowly stop caring about the juice and start enjoying the racing.

After all, that matters more than the result a lot of the time - certainly in terms of enjoyment.

They'll never take Pantani's '98 Tour away, even if he was on the juice. I still remember the feelings I had when I watched it, and I always will.

Cycling is for me, doping isn't. I do not believe the occurence of one event isn't dependent on the other.

I do like a sport that has it all, I love football the Giggs story adds to the spice. If it was Thierry Henry (or God) I'd be destroyed inside - tears and all.

I'm pissed off because I thought/think Contador was/is amazing (even with that I'm torn). If it was Schleck or Cadel I'd be closer towards the "ah well" stance.

At least Lance was clean.

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

At least Lance was clean.

:shock: There is an equal camp of those that think there was no way he could be clean and them's that would like to think he was clean. Mibbies aye, mibbies naw....

But I like Rick Chasey's take.

1988 Mens 100m final. My alarm goes off at 3.30am, go downstairs in PJ's, rubbing eyes, fire up the TV. Ben storms home in 9.88. Totally amazing. So subsequently he gets done for cheating, ban, disgrace..... but for those 9.88 sec's..... :shock:

DonDaddyD

It did two things:

Open the 100m sprint (i.e. the best event at the olympics) to more doping.

It pushed the boundaries of what was possible.

Some bad and some good.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cycling's probably not for you then DDD.

You have to like a sport that has it all. The grotty seedy bits as well as the beautiful highs.

When you watch it for a while, I've found you slowly stop caring about the juice and start enjoying the racing.

After all, that matters more than the result a lot of the time - certainly in terms of enjoyment.

They'll never take Pantani's '98 Tour away, even if he was on the juice. I still remember the feelings I had when I watched it, and I always will.

Cycling is for me, doping isn't. I do not believe the occurence of one event isn't dependent on the other.

I do like a sport that has it all, I love football the Giggs story adds to the spice. If it was Thierry Henry (or God) I'd be destroyed inside - tears and all.

I'm pissed off because I thought/think Contador was/is amazing (even with that I'm torn). If it was Schleck or Cadel I'd be closer towards the "ah well" stance.

At least Lance was clean.

That last bits a joke, right? RIGHT??!!

To be honest, I think your problem is that you aren't nearly cynical enough. You say that "I don't like watching a sport where you can't be sure if the winner at the end of the race is really the winner or a cheat." Well that is every sport. Don't kid yourself there aren't drugs in football, tennis, athletics, you name it. A lot of them don't really bother testing. A lot of them have far less stringent rules than cycling (Chelsea's blood spinning, Flintoff getting an ankle full of cortisone before a test match). And a lot of them just sweep it under the carpet (Agassi's positives for coke, for example). You go on to say "Imagine in boxing if the winner and champion was always disputed after the fight had been won" - doesn't that happen? Look at Khan / Peterson. Margarito's dodgy gloves. Manny's dodgy blood. "Evan Fields" on the Balco list. Roy Jones, James Toney and many others being caught out and not really sanctioned. Cycling is at the forefront of weeding it out, don't make the mistake of thinking that catching the cheats makes a sport dirtier...

rick_chasey

Cycling does conspiracies better than most though.

Partly because (ironically) it's so badly organised.

tailwindhome

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.

That was the UCI strategy in the 90s

Specialized Needs

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.

I haven't read the judgement, so only going by what is set out in this thread, but the quote from dunnnooo isn't contradictory. They said 'the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement.' (my emphasis)

Contaminated food supplement does not necessarily equal meat contamination. It seems to be a third option (meat contamination and blood transfusion being equally unlikely, and contaminated food supplement being the third option and seen as more likely).

As I said, that's just based on the wording in dunnnooo's post.

Specialized Needs

dunnnooo wrote:

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

Ignore what I waffled on about. What he ^ said.

I must update old threads before responding ...

DonDaddyD

I'm just catching up on the whole what he was sentenced for.

Either he doped (took a sufficient amount of a banned substance) or he didn't.

If Contador's whole defence was "it was contaminated meat" and the verdict found that this and doping was unlikely but food supplements that wouldn't enhance performance (which I think is an extension of the contaminated meat defence) was likely . Then I'm not sure he should have been banned.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm just catching up on the whole what he was sentenced for.

Either he doped (took a sufficient amount of a banned substance) or he didn't.

If Contador's whole defence was "it was contaminated meat" and the verdict found that this and doping was unlikely but food supplements that wouldn't enhance performance (which I think is an extension of the contaminated meat defence) was likely . Then I'm not sure he should have been banned.

Fotheringham gets to the crux of it here:

The key is to be found in paragraph 202A, under the heading "Issues to be decided". It's a single sentence: "Taking into account that an anti-doping rule violation has been established by the Appellants [UCI, world cycyling's governing body and Wada, the World Anti-Doping Agency] did Mr Contador establish, considering the required standard of proof, how the prohibited substance entered his system?" The answer, the reader figures out eventually, is no. How it happened is irrelevant. What mattered to the tribunal was that Contador had broken the anti-doping rules.

The finding is a vital one for anti-doping, because it reasserts the fundamental principle of strict liability: that the athlete is responsible for a banned substance that is found in his or her blood or urine and that the absence of proof that it has been ingested deliberately is not in itself proof of innocence. The athlete is guilty of doping unless he or she can prove they hold no responsibility for the presence of that banned substance. They have to provide that proof.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... or-verdict

DonDaddyD

what about the responsibility of the team? Many of these riders are given medical care and are rely on nutritionists
Should questions really not be asked of Astana?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

what about the responsibility of the team? Many of these riders are given medical care and are rely on nutritionists
Should questions really not be asked of Astana?

Absolutely.

However, what ends up in the athlete's body is still the responsibility of the athlete.

Now, granted, we have many many examples where riders were pressured by teams to use the juice, but I would suggest that a) over the past few years that's become tougher to do and get away with it and b) it's pretty high risk for many teams/sponsors (though obv. not Astana and Katusha).

Following the money (wire style) would certainly be more likely to get to the route of the problem, rather like any other drugs problem.

Cycling's been better than most for gunning at doctors who assist doping, and I think the team leaders & doctors involved in the '08 Puerto scandal are soon to be heard in court (presumably under criminal charges, though I'm not sure).

In this instance, given Contador's stature, I think the above states 'pressure' from a team is less of a big issue.

Wallace1492

I believe also that traces of plastination were also found in his blood, of a level consistent with a transfusion. While this is in itself not an infringement, it points to him having had a blood transfusion, and may well have been some residue clenbutorel in this. The meat is probably a red herring.

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

I believe also that traces of plastination were also found in his blood, of a level consistent with a transfusion. While this is in itself not an infringement, it points to him having had a blood transfusion, and may well have been some residue clenbutorel in this. The meat is probably a red herring.

CAS said the above was possible but unlikely.

They said food (not meat) was the most likely explanation.

Ultimately though, Contador could not conclusively prove how the clen ended up in his body, so he got the full whack (ish).

jonny_trousers

Rick Chasey wrote:

In this instance, given Contador's stature, I think the above states 'pressure' from a team is less of a big issue.

I guess in his case he could have said, I only eat what the team nutritionist gives me. I cannot guarantee that meat has not been tainted. But then I suppose if the rules state, if it's in your body then you're responsible, then there's little point in bringing down the team and making enemies for the future.

DonDaddyD

If I was Contador I would have been saying that.

ETA: I remember David Brailsford's "No" answer when ITV4 enquired whether he was considering signing Contador prior to the teams launch. The "No" was so abrupt it was clearly loaded.... maybe he knew back then...

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

If I was Contador I would have been saying that.

Why? It's HIS responsibility.

Furthermore, blaming the team would be VERY counter-productive for him and his career, let alone everyone else. It'd be even worse if he was lying!

Remember he's not going into this totally suspicion free anyway. He's been linked more than a few times to Puerto - and he obstinately refused to do a DNA test to prove that none of his blood was there.

Now sure, they doesn't count in court, but does it make the average fan less surprised he tested positive for something? For sure.

Also, in the context of his Dauphine performance versus his Tour performance, the blood transfusion argument looks a little more convincing.

EKE_38BPM

When I watch a sport, such as football or running, where 'waterboys' give the contestants/athletes waterbottles to rehydrate, I often wonder what would happen if one of the contestants/athletes tested +ve for drugs and blamed the contamination from the waterbottle they were given? Who are the waterboys?

I haven't seen it for a while, but it wasn't uncommon for pro-riders to accept a drink from the crowd on the mountain stages. If that was going to be your defence, you could go for some turbo-charged, instant effect, no chance of hiding it drug. Speed or something else even more effective. Not good for a stage win (as I assume all stage winners are tested) but for a massive jump up the GC it would do the job.

jonginge

EKE, most will accept water bottles from the crowd to cool themselves down by dumping over their heads. They don't drink them (unless they are really stupid). I've seen unopened cans of coke accepted and drunk by pro riders, though.

IIRC, stagewinner; top 3 on GC and randoms are tested each day.

EKE_38BPM

What about marathon runners? Drinks bottles on tables every few miles and the runners grab a bottle (often 'their' bottle with their personal juice). It wouldn't be impossible for that bottle to be tampered with.

On the pro tours, I imagine one of the 'randoms' could be the guy who has just performed out of his skin but with no previous form.

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

What about marathon runners? Drinks bottles on tables every few miles and the runners grab a bottle (often 'their' bottle with their personal juice). It wouldn't be impossible for that bottle to be tampered with.

What's your point?

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

What about marathon runners? Drinks bottles on tables every few miles and the runners grab a bottle (often 'their' bottle with their personal juice). It wouldn't be impossible for that bottle to be tampered with.

What's your point?

Just thinking out loud, really. I suppose I'm saying that if the posibility of drink tampering exists, it could be used by the defence team of an athlete to explain why they had a banned substance in their system. Only worth it for a highly effective, instant effect drug though.

sketchley

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

What about marathon runners? Drinks bottles on tables every few miles and the runners grab a bottle (often 'their' bottle with their personal juice). It wouldn't be impossible for that bottle to be tampered with.

What's your point?

Just thinking out loud, really. I suppose I'm saying that if the posibility of drink tampering exists, it could be used by the defence team of an rathlete to explain why they had a banned substance in their system. Only worth it for a highly effective, instant effect drug though.

This is where the ruling is interesting. Said athlete has to prove it came from a tampered drink, they cannot simply claim it might have and claim reasonable doubt. However criminal charges might not succeed with such a defence, as the burden or proof would be different.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

What about marathon runners? Drinks bottles on tables every few miles and the runners grab a bottle (often 'their' bottle with their personal juice). It wouldn't be impossible for that bottle to be tampered with.

What's your point?

Just thinking out loud, really. I suppose I'm saying that if the posibility of drink tampering exists, it could be used by the defence team of an rathlete to explain why they had a banned substance in their system. Only worth it for a highly effective, instant effect drug though.

This is where the ruling is interesting. Said athlete has to prove it came from a tampered drink, they cannot simply claim it might have and claim reasonable doubt. However criminal charges might not succeed with such a defence, as the burden or proof would be different.

That only applies when they've tested positive, which is fair enough.

You tested positive? You better have good reason, else we're throwing you out.

Otherwise no-one caught riding juiced up would ever be thrown out.

EKE_38BPM

The athlete could use the "I thought that tasted funny" defence.