Contadors Can Of Worms
Comments
-
Its well documented that Clenbutarol is given to cows in China and Mexico - hence the extraordinary number of positive tests at the football (and given how little football tests, that must have been nearly all of the tests that were positive!)
Again , no one is suggesting that beef could nt have been the source, but that given the facts of the case in question,it is so unlikely as to be irrelevant.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
If you don't like to debate the true value of a sportsman like Contador then you shouldn't post on a forum, you should just create a little shrine to him somewhere in your own home.
Either you post to stir the pot or you post to publicly announce your love; but to then ignore the public response (positive or negative) is just obtuse.0 -
The reason that I and so many others have a "beef" with Contaodor is that he came up with an excuse that the CAS found to lack credibiltiy. In the deabte above the "beef" story is getting too much credibility. From the CAS report:
"Unlike certain other countries, notably outside Europe, Spain is not known to have a contamination problem with clenbuterol in meat. Furthermore, no other cases of athletes having tested positive to clenbuterol allegedly in connection with the consumption of Spanish meat are known
"The panel concluded 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.0 -
The panel concluded 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.
Thats an interesting Quote which basically says the Clen stroy is unlikely (or ridiculous as stated on here by many), but just as unlikely (or complete truth as stated by many on here) is a blood transfusion.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:The panel concluded 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.
Thats an interesting Quote which basically says the Clen stroy is unlikely (or ridiculous as stated on here by many), but just as unlikely (or complete truth as stated by many on here) is a blood transfusion.
Further quote from the adjudication:
"In the panel's opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced, presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."
Not sure what that means but...........0 -
Just do a search, the whole Contador/clen/CAS business has been done to death several times over.
Go search for Ashenden's explanation of his disallowed testimony, which makes it pretty clear that Contador was a) using EPO and other things and b) had had a blood transfusion. Big win for his lawyers getting this barred, and it may explain why CAS felt obliged to come up with such an absurdly fudged conclusion.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:The panel concluded 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.
Thats an interesting Quote which basically says the Clen stroy is unlikely (or ridiculous as stated on here by many), but just as unlikely (or complete truth as stated by many on here) is a blood transfusion.
There was some controversy about how the evidence for the blood doping explanation for his Clenbuterol +ve was (or wasn't) heard by the CAS panel:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden0 -
if we're dredging up the past, read this...
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
Ashenden makes very valid points about the transfusion argument0 -
x-post0
-
bompington wrote:Just do a search, the whole Contador/clen/CAS business has been done to death several times over.
Go search for Ashenden's explanation of his disallowed testimony, which makes it pretty clear that Contador was a) using EPO and other things and b) had had a blood transfusion. Big win for his lawyers getting this barred, and it may explain why CAS felt obliged to come up with such an absurdly fudged conclusion.
Doesn't matter how right Ashenden is, in the real world you cannot be convicted with evidence that never made it into Court and we wouldn't allow this to be the case in criminal proceedings for obvious reasons. Ashendens is just one mans testimony that never made it into the Court-room0 -
By that reasoning Contador is undisputably a drug cheat as he has been handed a ban for PEDs. Game over.0
-
nathancom wrote:By that reasoning Contador is undisputably a drug cheat as he has been handed a ban for PEDs. Game over.
According to the facts, thats something we are all agreed on anyway, as Ive stated continuously for the last 18 months.0 -
derbygrimpeur wrote:if we're dredging up the past, read this...
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
Ashenden makes very valid points about the transfusion argument
And the comments at the end are interesting;
Isn't the comtaminated meat theory a little bit (or much more) likely than the Ashenden theory? Over the last two years about 200 sportsmen walked in spite of a clenbuterol positive. Because they ate meat in China or Mexico. As if clenbuterol is only used in those two countries... Spain imports one third of its meat from south America where clenbuterol is widely used. I'm not saying that Contador did not dope. I can't prove that, but neither can we prove that he did. Comes in play this incredibly stupid WADA rule that says that athletes are responsible for anything in their body. (strict liability). Add to that the even more stupid rule that it's a two year ban, or nothing.
If there is one case in which the athlete should have given the benefit of the doubt, this is one.
But the nice thing: they didn't give him two years. He only got six months, because he is riding again in August. And you know why: because if Contador went to the European Court ( for a two year ban that would have been likely) the entire WADA dictate would have been declared illegal in Europe.
That, and nothing else, is the background of this stupid story of an athlete who was caught with in his urine 50 picograms of an illegal substance, which is 40 times less than the threshold WADA labs have (had) to be able to find, in order to qualify for clenbuterol testing.
Watch what is going to happen: a realistic threshold for clenbuterol will be put in place. The machines become too sensitive and our food chain is 'poisened' by more than clenbuterol.
And something about the Ashenden theory: plasticisers are found in lots of urines, also of people that never took drugs. (I quote a wada doping researcher here.) And what if Ashenden were biased: he makes money out of the drug abuse business and it is in his interest to present the drug abuse as big as possible.
Regards,
Hans VANDEWEGHE
(former sports writer who covered the Festina affair, disclosed drug abuse by VANDENBROUCKE, MUSEEUW and others, but remained realistic about the issue)
Almost all of the top riders have doped, all of them have had different defences and reactions to their punishment. We just have to move on and look forward to a great battle between Froome and Contador next year.0 -
Nick Fitt wrote:derbygrimpeur wrote:if we're dredging up the past, read this...
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
Ashenden makes very valid points about the transfusion argument
And the comments at the end are interesting;
Isn't the comtaminated meat theory a little bit (or much more) likely than the Ashenden theory? Over the last two years about 200 sportsmen walked in spite of a clenbuterol positive. Because they ate meat in China or Mexico. As if clenbuterol is only used in those two countries... Spain imports one third of its meat from south America where clenbuterol is widely used. I'm not saying that Contador did not dope. I can't prove that, but neither can we prove that he did. Comes in play this incredibly stupid WADA rule that says that athletes are responsible for anything in their body. (strict liability). Add to that the even more stupid rule that it's a two year ban, or nothing.
If there is one case in which the athlete should have given the benefit of the doubt, this is one.
But the nice thing: they didn't give him two years. He only got six months, because he is riding again in August. And you know why: because if Contador went to the European Court ( for a two year ban that would have been likely) the entire WADA dictate would have been declared illegal in Europe.
That, and nothing else, is the background of this stupid story of an athlete who was caught with in his urine 50 picograms of an illegal substance, which is 40 times less than the threshold WADA labs have (had) to be able to find, in order to qualify for clenbuterol testing.
Watch what is going to happen: a realistic threshold for clenbuterol will be put in place. The machines become too sensitive and our food chain is 'poisened' by more than clenbuterol.
And something about the Ashenden theory: plasticisers are found in lots of urines, also of people that never took drugs. (I quote a wada doping researcher here.) And what if Ashenden were biased: he makes money out of the drug abuse business and it is in his interest to present the drug abuse as big as possible.
Regards,
Hans VANDEWEGHE
(former sports writer who covered the Festina affair, disclosed drug abuse by VANDENBROUCKE, MUSEEUW and others, but remained realistic about the issue)
Almost all of the top riders have doped, all of them have had different defences and reactions to their punishment. We just have to move on and look forward to a great battle between Froome and Contador next year.
Have to take issue with your comment regarding the "Incredibly stupid WADA rule that states athletes are responsible for what is in there bodies". What would be stupid would be allowing the ready made get out clause that could be used by any doper "Not my fault guv, must have been something I ate".
All pro riders food and drinks are closely monitored by the team Chefs, doctors etc. What they eat and drink during an event is finely tuned and controlled.
Also, lets face it, no rider eats steak before the Queen stage of the Tour, that is simply laughable.
For some reason Contador was given one month to come up with his "Steak" excuse. Why? we will probably never know. So, as you say, tainted meat is not produced in France, so what can he say? I know. A good friend of mine bought one in a shop, in Spain, that, happily imports tainted meat, and insisted I ate it. Now... even though I am a pro athlete, and its the Queen stage of the most important event in my racing calendar, I cant upset my friend by not ingesting said meat can I?...............You get the rest.0 -
Its at least 15000 to 1 against there being any clen infected cattle in Spain (as per the test samples). Then you have sll the meat eaters in Spain - God knows how many, hundreds of thousands at least. given this, the odds of a clen infected steak finding its way onto the dinner plate of the maillot jaune on the final rest day before the Queen stage of the Tdf are about a zillion to one, whatever that is. If anybody wants to believe it happened more fool them. Similarly the whole 'served his sentence' argument - well, he didn't really did he? He was banned for two years but as it was backdated he still rode, and even now he refuses to acknowledge this ban by claiming seven GT wins still.When a true genius appears in this world, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift0
-
reallyarunner wrote:Its at least 15000 to 1 against there being any clen infected cattle in Spain (as per the test samples). Then you have sll the meat eaters in Spain - God knows how many, hundreds of thousands at least. given this, the odds of a clen infected steak finding its way onto the dinner plate of the maillot jaune on the final rest day before the Queen stage of the Tdf are about a zillion to one, whatever that is. If anybody wants to believe it happened more fool them. Similarly the whole 'served his sentence' argument - well, he didn't really did he? He was banned for two years but as it was backdated he still rode, and even now he refuses to acknowledge this ban by claiming seven GT wins still.
errrrrrm. Yes he did.0 -
reallyarunner wrote:Its at least 15000 to 1 against there being any clen infected cattle in Spain (as per the test samples). Then you have sll the meat eaters in Spain - God knows how many, hundreds of thousands at least. given this, the odds of a clen infected steak finding its way onto the dinner plate of the maillot jaune on the final rest day before the Queen stage of the Tdf are about a zillion to one, whatever that is. If anybody wants to believe it happened more fool them. Similarly the whole 'served his sentence' argument - well, he didn't really did he? He was banned for two years but as it was backdated he still rode, and even now he refuses to acknowledge this ban by claiming seven GT wins still.
Because the Spanish Authorities would never cover up 'steroids' in cattle to protect meat sales would they. :roll:0 -
Yep, that explains all the other sportsmen in Europe who've tested positive for clen due to meat contamination :roll: :roll:Nick Fitt wrote:reallyarunner wrote:Its at least 15000 to 1 against there being any clen infected cattle in Spain (as per the test samples). Then you have sll the meat eaters in Spain - God knows how many, hundreds of thousands at least. given this, the odds of a clen infected steak finding its way onto the dinner plate of the maillot jaune on the final rest day before the Queen stage of the Tdf are about a zillion to one, whatever that is. If anybody wants to believe it happened more fool them. Similarly the whole 'served his sentence' argument - well, he didn't really did he? He was banned for two years but as it was backdated he still rode, and even now he refuses to acknowledge this ban by claiming seven GT wins still.
Because the Spanish Authorities would never cover up 'steroids' in cattle to protect meat sales would they. :roll:0 -
Since the WADA and UCI used blood doping as an explanation to the clenbuterol being present in his blood and CAS disregarding some of the evidence of blood doping, since blood doping is a separate violation and not what the arbitration was about.
Did the UCI now have enough evidence to charge him with blood doping as a separate sanction?
He lost the clenbuterol case because he did not prove it was more likely from eating meat. The UCI and WADA showed how unlikley it was after tracing the source and evaluating the supplier, who had no cases of doped animals.0 -
If he had proven the link to a steak I am guessing Mexican steak would have suddenly become very popular on cycling teams
Certified heavyweight, pure racer, complete champion.0 -
Just to make my position clear. I am certain Contador doped. However, the excuse he gave has been used to great affect the world over by athletes. He has done his time, however much that grates. He is a great racer and if he rides the TdF, I am certain will add value to it as a spectacle. I can deal with the bullshit and look forward to the racing. many though cant deal with the bullshit and so hate the guy and everything about him. As the thread title says, 'Contadors Can of Worms'.0
-
MY problem with Contador is that I can't be certain he is clean NOW. He worked for a team/DS proven to be involved in the most sophisticated doping program in the history of sport. He moved to an extremely questionable team, with said dodgy DS. He worked with (although admittedly didn't get along with) the chief doper. He is now employed by another confessed doper & alleged "introducer".
Given all we know about cycling's history, the above says to me that he can't be trusted to now be clean. I'd rather he wasn't there. That he will be there, most likely riding away from opposition, will not make the racing great. It will only raise more questions.0 -
ddraver wrote:Yes but the excuse only works when they can prove that they ve eaten contaminated meat or in a country where contaminated meat is well established to be a problem
See the difference?
Not really, I don't think you get my point, which as Ive said is mute really so dont worry too much about it. But, it still beats they were for my dog.
It does not matter about the excuse, or the behaviour afterwards. Its whether you as an individual accept it. Doping in pro cycling is/was so prolific, the excuse is mute too. If Contador is riding clean then thats great. I am certain the racing will be great. If he is not, or any other rider of note (I say that as they will be the ones to hit the headlines hardest), even after all the 'cleansing' and everything else that's gone on this year, then I think the next steps have to be along the lines of Dailey Thompsons 'harsh but fair' ideas. Muttering about one rider on a forum wont change a thing.
Grimpeur: Its like cycling being a wife and being caught shagging, only you can decide how long it takes to forgive her. Me, I know she is an old slag that will drop them at any time, but i do still love her so!0 -
Oh, you old romantic, Nick Fitt0
-
I cant see how 100 years of doping for various reasons will get swapped out over night. I hope it does, I really do, for no other reason than cycle sport should be seen for its beauty and achievement not its doping. I wont lose sleep over it though, and I shall still cheer like a loon on the Alpe next summer as my heroes go past in a blur. Lets be honest, if froome and AC are locked in a mano y mano twice up the Alpe, at that exact moment, no-one will worry about pan y agua, well i wont anyway, its about the race0
-
Nick Fitt wrote:Me, I know she is an old slag that will drop them at any time, but i do still love her so!
Does she like puppies?
Long story...0 -
Nick Fitt wrote:Its like cycling being a wife and being caught shagging, only you can decide how long it takes to forgive her. Me, I know she is an old slag that will drop them at any time, but i do still love her so!
So what if you caught someone giving her a foot massage?
0 -
0
