The one good thing to come from Contador's bans?

donrhummy

I think the one good thing to come out of the two bans Contador has gone through are that we have a modern Grand Tour winner who's competing in all the Grand Tours. If he'd never been stopped from riding the TDF because of Astana's ban (for 2008) and then the Clenbuterol case, he would likely have only competed in the Tour de France the past 5 years. His participation in the two Giros were both because of TDF bans as were his Vuelta participations (which he'd previously stated he wouldn't ride in until the end of his career). While the cases themselves are bad for cycling, having top riders in all three grand tours is very good for cycling.

Turfle

I think you have to REALLY want to see a positive to see that one.

estampida

two bans is bad, none bans is good do you understand this??

it shows the teams are prepared to employ cheats who don't have enough talent and skill to win normally, good role model there....

and the damage wont stop until people stop talking about cheats, buying the bike and the top they wear.......

donrhummy

estampida wrote:

two bans is bad, none bans is good do you understand this??

it shows the teams are prepared to employ cheats who don't have enough talent and skill to win normally, good role model there....

and the damage wont stop until people stop talking about cheats, buying the bike and the top they wear.......

It's not that simple. Did you read the decision from CAS? They didn't think he'd doped. They thought it was an accidental ingestion from a supplement but since Contador hadn't presented that as his argument, they found him guilty. It's not clear he really was guilty in the clenbuterol case.

cal_stewart

also wada couldn't use the plastsizer evidence linked to blood doping as that was also not presented

Turfle

donrhummy wrote:

estampida wrote:

two bans is bad, none bans is good do you understand this??

it shows the teams are prepared to employ cheats who don't have enough talent and skill to win normally, good role model there....

and the damage wont stop until people stop talking about cheats, buying the bike and the top they wear.......

It's not that simple. Did you read the decision from CAS? They didn't think he'd doped. They thought it was an accidental ingestion from a supplement but since Contador hadn't presented that as his argument, they found him guilty. It's not clear he really was guilty in the clenbuterol case.

"This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened."

They simply said based on the evidence presented they found it more likely than a transfusion or the meat story. And that it was irrelevant anyway.

Michael Ashenden, who presented the blood doping theory, was not allowed to speak.


http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/documen ... .02.06.pdf

mfin

Turfle wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

estampida wrote:

two bans is bad, none bans is good do you understand this??

it shows the teams are prepared to employ cheats who don't have enough talent and skill to win normally, good role model there....

and the damage wont stop until people stop talking about cheats, buying the bike and the top they wear.......

It's not that simple. Did you read the decision from CAS? They didn't think he'd doped. They thought it was an accidental ingestion from a supplement but since Contador hadn't presented that as his argument, they found him guilty. It's not clear he really was guilty in the clenbuterol case.

"This does not mean that the Panel is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this scenario of ingestion of a contaminated food supplement actually happened."

They simply said based on the evidence presented they found it more likely than a transfusion or the meat story. And that it was irrelevant anyway.

Michael Ashenden, who presented the blood doping theory, was not allowed to speak.


http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/documen ... .02.06.pdf

Exactly. The blood doping evidence was NOT clearly heard at all, AC's bunch jumped at their right to keep it about the Steak. ...and, out of the three scenarios roughly encompassed (Steak, Supplement, Blood Transfusion) ONLY the Steak one that AC picked was one that if upheld would have meant no ban. Its no wonder he (and his co-authors) made it up really.

IanLD

As Hamilton puts it, he transfused blood taken when he was still glowing...

sketchley

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

Pross

He rode the Giro and the Tour in 2011 so how did he only ride the Giro because he was banned from the Tour?

thegibdog

Pross wrote:

He rode the Giro and the Tour in 2011 so how did he only ride the Giro because he was banned from the Tour?

Because he expected to be banned for the Tour. But then it he should really have been banned for both anyway.

Given that Contador has made no admission of guilt and says he thinks the doping rules are wrong I think the best thing to happen would be for him to be caught again and banned for life. As much has pro cycling has progressed in recent years it's hard to see it really moving on as long as there are riders like Contador in the peleton.

Vino'sGhost

Some of the comments on here are unbelievably judgemental, vindictive and nasty; it makes me wonder if somethings missing in some peoples lives.

He wasnt found guilty of using blood transfusions because he wasnt charged with transfusing blood. If there was evidence that would have withstood any kind of critical analysis he would have been charged with that.

Its less than certain what caused the positive and CAS said as much.

He's a champion that has prevailed despite the best attempts of the dishonest to catch him out. I wouldnt presume to tell anyone how to think or feel or what to do but i can say what im going to do.

Watch the best and most entertaining stage racer in years do his thing

MrT

I think the key thing here is the "entertainment". As long as riders are entertaining us that really is the bottom line. Best to stop casting aspersions and focus on the spectacle.....can't wait for next years round of GTs and Strictly Come Cycling.

greasedscotsman

How about having the Vuelta for "entertaining" riders and the TdF for "clean" riders?

Daz555

I suspect he'll fail another test in the coming years.

bompington

Vino'sGhost wrote:

He was found not guilty of using blood transfusions because his lawyers managed to stop him getting charged with transfusing blood. If there was evidence that would have withstood any kind of critical analysis they managed to stop it getting to the CAS.

FTFY

TheBigBean

Fair point by the OP. I find it, whilst quite understandable, a shame when riders only ride the tdf.

MrT

donrhummy wrote:

I think the one good thing to come out of the two bans Contador has gone through are that we have a modern Grand Tour winner who's competing in all the Grand Tours. If he'd never been stopped from riding the TDF because of Astana's ban (for 2008) and then the Clenbuterol case, he would likely have only competed in the Tour de France the past 5 years. His participation in the two Giros were both because of TDF bans as were his Vuelta participations (which he'd previously stated he wouldn't ride in until the end of his career). While the cases themselves are bad for cycling, having top riders in all three grand tours is very good for cycling.

What worries me about the last aspect of this is that as riders become more fatigued...the temptation for some to juice up for the Vuelta may be too much. The personality profiles of "top riders" is varied...but there will be some for whom the thought of a poor performance...by their standards...will be too much for the ego or indeed the sponsor, to live with. I think the years have shown that 3 gts in a year are too much unless you are "well prepared".

ddraver

greasedscotsman wrote:

How about having the Vuelta for "entertaining" riders and the TdF for "clean" riders?

Hah, not a bad idea that!

What's the Giro for though? Old, past it dopers vs clean young upstarts?

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

How about having the Vuelta for "entertaining" riders and the TdF for "clean" riders?

Hah, not a bad idea that!

What's the Giro for though? Old, past it dopers vs clean young upstarts?

Reserve teams and Italians.

mike6

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Some of the comments on here are unbelievably judgemental, vindictive and nasty; it makes me wonder if somethings missing in some peoples lives.

He wasnt found guilty of using blood transfusions because he wasnt charged with transfusing blood. If there was evidence that would have withstood any kind of critical analysis he would have been charged with that.

Its less than certain what caused the positive and CAS said as much.

He's a champion that has prevailed despite the best attempts of the dishonest to catch him out. I wouldnt presume to tell anyone how to think or feel or what to do but i can say what im going to do.

Watch the best and most entertaining stage racer in years do his thing

Vino.......I presume you are having a laugh here. "the best attempts of the dishonest to catch him out" ????

He had clenbuterol in his system for goodness sake. It is not naturally occuring, are you suggesting the UCI planted it in his sample? He cheated, and has been associated with cheats all his career. Tainted steak!!!! Yea, lets face it, Tour contenders eat steak every night, there team doctors and nutritionists insist on it for optimum performance.

Mikey23

With a nice clenbuterol sauce ...