Contador on Eurosport

mfin

No tA Doctor wrote:

richard wants a baum wrote:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden

Has been posted before, makes for some interesting reading.

This.

No, that evidence and logic wasn't allowed, as although expert, was not part of the case, the case was purely on the fairy tale beef thing, which was decided was a fairy tale. Everything in that article means nothing (unless anyone's read it without their fingers in their eyes), and Contador is the no.1 bestest super cyclist except for Lance, who was (and still is) the bestest cyclist the world has ever ever seen.

neeb

richard wants a baum wrote:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden

Has been posted before, makes for some interesting reading.

OK, I hadn't seen that and it does indeed make very interesting reading.

So the WADA/UCI case (the basis for the ban) was a misrepresentation and the balance of probability is actually that Contador was blood-doping (even if that's not what he was banned for).

So it was the right decision according to the rules and for the right reason (he couldn't prove that the Clenbuterol hadn't been taken intentionally), but the wrong judgment according to the totality of the evidence, but with the right outcome (he was banned).

I still think people need to be explicit about what they are accusing others of and why.

mfin

neeb wrote:

I still think people need to be explicit about what they are accusing others of and why.

Which others?

Paulie W

That some people on this thread see no problem with this interview does say something about fans and the sport's attitude to doping. It's hard to imagine Ben Johnson being wheeled out in advance of the 1992 100m final in such a fashion!

TheBigBean

Paulie W wrote:

That some people on this thread see no problem with this interview does say something about fans and the sport's attitude to doping. It's hard to imagine Ben Johnson being wheeled out in advance of the 1992 100m final in such a fashion!

But Carl Lewis, Lindford Christie and Shane Warne, to name a few, all do interviews for their fans despite all failing drug tests. Apparently, they all made innocent mistakes and did not intend to dope. Many people would like to believe this is the case for Contador.

As Dr Ashenden states many times, his job was not to prove that Contador blood doped, but that blood doping is a possible explanation for the presence of clen. In the article, he makes a persuasive argument.

woodford2barbican

All the people saying there is no issue, what would your view be if it was Ricco being interviewed? Another cyclist serving a doping ban who denies he did it...

mfin

Well.

Fact is it was investigated whether the beef fairy story was a fairy story, and it was decided it was a fairy story.

It was stated it was likely to be supplement contamination, although another reason it could have got there was blood doping. Blood doping was not investigated as it was not part of the case, only glanced upon really, as was supplement contamination ...but, the case was to try to prove/disprove the fairy story. That's all.

You can't really accept the supplement contamination likelyhood over blood doping, where information Ashenden talks about was available but not looked at, and, if it was looked at, how much more information and analysis would have happened?...

There's also the simple fact that if it was blood-doping, then the clen was aaaaanother bit of doping that had been done weeks before.

For me, if all this information was there and not looked at (I know, not the point of the case I re-re-iterate) and is out there, then the guy waffling on the TV is not only serving a ban for something but has worse to answer for, but the ban is enough for me that he shouldn't really be a current face of the sport in the media, at least until his ban's over.

I also agree the Ricco comment.

neeb

mfin wrote:

Which others?

In this case, Contador - I just meant that it's important to say exactly what you think someone is guilty of and back it up rather than simply saying they are a convicted doper and shouldn't be on TV.

Going only by the ruling of the CAS he is more than likely a victim, and while it might be necessary to ban him he hasn't intentionally cheated and actually deserves sympathy.

Going by the totality of the evidence perhaps he was blood-doping during the tour and doesn't deserve any sympathy whatsoever, but that's not what he was banned for.

mfin

neeb wrote:

mfin wrote:

Which others?

In this case, Contador - I just meant that it's important to say exactly what you think someone is guilty of and back it up rather than simply saying they are a convicted doper and shouldn't be on TV.

I disagree. I might sound hypocrital (in the light that I will say what I think regarding the doping) but I think people need offer no assessment of his doping to say he is a convicted doper and shouldn't be on TV. There are multiple official bodies of varying powers that have, in whatever ways, convicted him of a doping offence. Because of that I can't see why it would be so odd that people wouldn't see it right that he gets such airspace on TV to comment on cycle races he is banned from, and he did have that substance in him, that was never questioned.

Also, another fair point is you could keep him off the TV just on the account that he's boring, but this is Eurosport, some including me for sure find Kelly's tones boring, but he's educated and talks about what he knows, Mr C. comes across about as enthralling as David Beckham talking about a Footedball match.

neeb

To put it another way around, IF the Clenbuterol had clearly come from a contaminated supplement and he had been banned for that, would it be wrong to interview him on TV? I don't think so, but I can see the room for disagreement.

"Doper" is a very loaded term, it definitely implies intent to dope and cheating. I do think it's very important to draw a distinction between someone who intentionally cheats and someone who falls foul of the rules through no fault of their own, even if a ban might be necessary in both cases.

Paulie W

TheBigBean wrote:

But Carl Lewis, Lindford Christie and Shane Warne, to name a few, all do interviews for their fans despite all failing drug tests. Apparently, they all made innocent mistakes and did not intend to dope. Many people would like to believe this is the case for Contador.

It's all about context - I'm not suggesting that Contador be removed from the airwaves for eternity but rather that it is deeply inappropriate to roll him out during his ban and particularly before the Giro (given that he has been stricken from the winner's roster for 2011). That some people are not troubled by this amazes me.

mfin

Or, if he owned up to it, then maybe it would be okay for him to be on TV?? ...maaaaybe so, although who'd ask him to.

If he was caught from proved contaminated supplements he would have served a ban. If he was caught through blood doping, he would have served a ban. If he was caught through the beef fairy story he could have 'got off'.

Maybe its fluke that he picked the only one that he could have got off free with as his defence if it was proved that way, maybe not.

He can however apparently eat 3.2kgs of steak in one go, so hats off the to man, there's not many people that can do that. Perhaps he deserves to be on telly for that alone, that's gotta be a far better reason than his dull opinions on everyone else who's racing and who are not serving a ban for doping. Makes me smile.