Contador Suspended

Nietzschean

what i don't get about this, if you were into doping, surely you'd keep track on testing methods, getting around using plastic blood bags seems like one of the easier things? use glass/ceramics or something for storage?

Chips Lovell

Nietzschean wrote: »

what i don't get about this, if you were into doping, surely you'd keep track on testing methods, getting around using plastic blood bags seems like one of the easier things? use glass/ceramics or something for storage?

They're no longer in the habit of announcing when they've developed a test for something. That's how they got so many people on CERA. They thought there was no test for it.

levitronix

Someone here might be able to answer this question .. when a pro signs a contract with a team are there any stipulations or clauses in the contract where they agree not to take any performance enhancers while under contract ?

Chips Lovell

levitronix wrote: »

Someone here might be able to answer this question .. when a pro signs a contract with a team are there any stipulations or clauses in the contract where they agree not to take any performance enhancers while under contract ?

There usually are, which is why a lot of times fire the rider after they get caught.

levitronix

So in most cases they ll help a guy cheat, then fire him if he gets caught , am i really naive to think this is how it works ?

Chips Lovell

levitronix wrote: »

So in most cases they ll help a guy cheat, then fire him if he gets caught , am i really naive to think this is how it works ?

In some cases, yes. The negative PR value of keeping a rider on outweighs the fact that they were in it together. In other cases teams, the teams weren't involved and the rider organised his own doping.

superrdave

levitronix wrote: »

So in most cases they ll help a guy cheat, then fire him if he gets caught , am i really naive to think this is how it works ?

Lumen

Kohl: Not possible to win Tour de France without doping

:rolleyes:

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

Kohl: Not possible to win Tour de France without doping

:rolleyes:

IIRC, Philippe Gilbert is of the same opinion.
Regardless of what one thinks of Kohl it would be difficult to argue against him.

Diarmuid

Lumen wrote: »

Kohl: Not possible to win Tour de France without doping

:rolleyes:

Hard to argue with him when you look at the winners over the past 15 years.

Diarmuid

Walsh weights in.

Junior

Diarmuid wrote: »

Hard to argue with him when you look at the winners over the past 15 years.

It is but the fact Sastre is in there still puts the other side across, and it raises the question should riders like Dan Martin, Tony Martin, Nico Roche, Richie Porte just stop now cos a rider who couldn't do anything without doping says you can't win without doping.

cormpat

Also Basso in the Giro this year, I know he has a bit of history with doping but supposedly he was clean this year.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4607/Bassos-biological-passport-numbers-from-Giro-dItalia-published.aspx

Chips Lovell

Clenbutador

ednwireland

el tonto wrote: »

Clenbutador

you must have been up all night thinking that one up

sy

levitronix wrote: »

Someone here might be able to answer this question .. when a pro signs a contract with a team are there any stipulations or clauses in the contract where they agree not to take any performance enhancers while under contract ?

A further question is have Sidi and co a money back clause?

mgmt

sy wrote: »

A further question is have Sidi and co a money back clause?

Sidi should give me money for their having to endure their sexually suggestive adverts.

ednwireland

sy wrote: »

A further question is have Sidi and co a money back clause?

contador deserves every penny for having to wear that white suit

leftism

mgmt wrote: »

Sidi should give me money for their having to endure their sexually suggestive adverts.

Those Sidi adds managed to make a sport that involves men clad almost entirely in spandex seem even gayer than it already is. That is some achievement....

goldencleric

leftism wrote: »

Those Sidi adds managed to make a sport that involves men clad almost entirely in spandex seem even more euro than it already is. That is some achievement....

just fixed that for you there ...

NickDrake

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/segura-says-contador-plasticizer-levels-are-indicative-of-transfusion

Developer of test says Contador had a blood transfusion. Looks kike we can say for certain he is dirty.

We all new it anyway but nice to have a scientist back it up.

Now lets get him out of the sport.

Nietzschean

NickDrake wrote: »

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/segura-says-contador-plasticizer-levels-are-indicative-of-transfusion

Looks kike we can say for certain he is dirty.

Er, nothing in that article says he doped for certain.

Segura said that he had no idea that his method for detecting plasticisers had been used by the laboratory in Cologne to test Contador's samples from the Tour. "Nobody has officially notified us that it has been used," Segura confirms. "I don't understand how it can be that they haven't been in contact with the people who developed the test, especially as it is being used in such high-profile case."

he appears to even cast doubt that they did his test at all given they never contacted him about it....

NickDrake

Nietzschean wrote: »

Er, nothing in that article says he doped for certain.


he appears to even cast doubt that they did his test at all given they never contacted him about it....

Still defending him? In says in the article that it says for certain a blood transfusion took place. What more do you want?

Nietzschean

NickDrake wrote: »

Still defending him? In says in the article that it says for certain a blood transfusion took place. What more do you want?

Quote in full context where he says that. I'm not defending him, i'm questioning your taking things out of context/reading more into something that isn't there.

uberwolf

NickDrake wrote: »

Still defending him? In says in the article that it says for certain a blood transfusion took place. What more do you want?

scientist guy wrote:

Those reported parameters are an unequivocal indication [that a blood transfusion took place],

so he hasn't seen the results, and is relying on second hand info. Having developed the test - which isn't yet legally admissible btw ("In legal terms, you may need more tests to support it, as often happens with such discoveries.")

AND most importantly he equivocates when he says

"However, we should look at all the data and see if there are any sudden changes in the levels in the samples taken before and afterwards."

underlining that the one sample point isn't enough in his view. And he developed the test. So he says it looks suspect. Which of course it does.

Given what had already been highlighted elsewhere on forum, and perhaps in thread, no one is entitled to act as judge and jury here. It does leave boards.ie exposed and will be treated as trolling.

Diarmuid

NickDrake wrote: »

Still defending him? In says in the article that it says for certain a blood transfusion took place. What more do you want?

The article says

Questioned about claims made in the New York Times and L'Equipe that Contador's levels were eight to 10 times higher than normal, Segura said, "Those reported parameters are an unequivocal indication [that a blood transfusion took place]," Segura told AS. "However, we should look at all the data and see if there are any sudden changes in the levels in the samples taken before and afterwards."

So if the claims in the NYT are correct then yes he doped.

See that "if"? It's very important. I thought putting it in bold would be enough, but as you don't seem to do nuanced I think I need to point it out.

RobFowl

Nietzschean wrote: »

Quote in full context where he says that. I'm not defending him, i'm questioning your taking things out of context/reading more into something that isn't there.

My reading of it is that Dr Segura says that if his test was used correctly (and labs regularly repeat published test procedures without contacting the original scientist ) then at a certain thresehold it is a definite sign of blood transfusion.
The only proviso was that the test has not yet been tested to the point where it cannot be questioned. This case could provide that platform for the "test" to happen.

niceonetom

NickDrake wrote: »

Still defending him? In says in the article that it says for certain a blood transfusion took place. What more do you want?

Nicky pleeeeaaaase. It says:

"Those reported parameters are an unequivocal indication [that a blood transfusion took place]," Segura told AS. "However, we should look at all the data and see if there are any sudden changes in the levels in the samples taken before and afterwards."

Segura said that he had no idea that his method for detecting plasticisers had been used by the laboratory in Cologne to test Contador's samples from the Tour.

So if the "reported parameters" are as reported in the media are acurrate (a real if right now) then that would be an unequivocal indication. But he doesn't even know if his test has been used at all.

How can you honestly represent that as

NickDrake wrote:

Developer of test says Contador had a blood transfusion.

?

I've been forced into concluding that you have genuine problems understanding what people say. First there was your horribly inaccurate synopsis of D Walsh's article in the Sunday Times, now this. There's a pattern: someone says something reasonable, guarded, and supported by the facts - you hear it as something absolute and certain and, of course, completely in line with your initial prejudices. This is not good, Nick. Reading comprehension is an essential and useful too; work on it. It will help you in life.

Now, I've never been a fan of the man from Pinto btw, but your inability or reluctance to separate support from disinterested analysis is just silly.

And yes, I understand the painful and dangerous irony I'm tempting with this post. My chances of being understood by you are, I concede, low.

NickDrake

niceonetom wrote: »

Nicky pleeeeaaaase. It says:



So if the "reported parameters" are as reported in the media are acurrate (a real if right now) then that would be an unequivocal indication. But he doesn't even know if his test has been used at all.

How can you honestly represent that as



?

I've been forced into concluding that you have genuine problems understanding what people say. First there was your horribly inaccurate synopsis of D Walsh's article in the Sunday Times, now this. There's a pattern: someone says something reasonable, guarded, and supported by the facts - you hear it as something absolute and certain and, of course, completely in line with your initial prejudices. This is not good, Nick. Reading comprehension is an essential and useful too; work on it. It will help you in life.

Now, I've never been a fan of the man from Pinto btw, but your inability or reluctance to separate support from disinterested analysis is just silly.

And yes, I understand the painful and dangerous irony I'm tempting with this post. My chances of being understood by you are, I concede, low.

A nice little attack of my inteligence. Basically, I know that cycling is one of those sports where people are afraid to state the obvious and for legal reasons talk around the subject.

IT IS MY VIEW that a transfusion took place and jounalists and scientists are hinting at it but cant say for sure due to legal reasons.

That is enough for me as it has been on other cases over the years.

That is my view and I will leave it at that.

mod edit in caps. Next time you're taking a week off from the forum.

niceonetom

NickDrake wrote: »

A nice little attack of my inteligence.

I just had to quote that. Had to.

NickDrake wrote: »

Basically, I know that cycling is one of those sports where people are afraid to state the obvious and for legal reasons talk around the subject.

It is quite obvious that a transfusion took place and jounalists and scientists are hinting at it but cant say for sure due to legal reasons.

That is enough for me as it has been on other cases over the years.

I'm not saying Berto's in clean - in fact I don't think ANYONE has said that here. We know you're convinced. We know. As it happens I'm pretty convinced too - but I don't go around claiming that journalists or scientist have said something they have not said to back my position up. That's all I'm drawing attention to. Either you're accidentally failing to comprehend what is being said or you're deliberately misrepresenting people. Would you prefer I concluded malice rather than poor comprehension skills? Because those are the only options you've left me with.

NickDrake wrote: »

That is my view and I will leave it at that.

I'm pretty sure you've made similar promises before. Didn't believe you then either.

blorg

@Nick- give it a rest. I have read this entire thread with your incessant yapping (and to be fair occasional informative contributions) and frankly I have not seen a single person discussing the result and what it means and what might happen "defending Contador."

Go read a Lance thread (preferably on an American forum) if you want to see what "defending" looks like. I have not seen anyone here say "I think Contador is riding clean," "he is the second most tested athlete on the planet," "it is a witch-hunt by the French against a Spanish champion," etc.

I don't think many of the posters here are under any illusions as to the level of doping in cycling but having a discussion about the result and the likely outcome does not equate to defending the athlete in question. We all have our opinions as to what the truth is but the opinion of someone on an internet forum is not currently accepted by WADA, the UCI or any national federation as sufficient for a ban.

There is a quasi-legal process that is worked through and it is interesting to discuss the potential outcomes of that process. It is a completely valid point that an unvalidated test is not enough to hang the guy.

This has been clearly explained to you again and again by many posters (on this thread and others over a period of months) but your continued ra ra string up the dopers cheer-leading is getting extremely tiresome. Your misleading and biased reporting is also annoying.

Personally I suspect he will get a two year ban on the Clenbuterol positive; there is no minimum or threshold and even proving food contamination does not automatically waive a ban only give the option of a reduction. I may personally believe the guy had a transfusion but I think that is less likely to stick legally with the status of the test. The Clenbuterol positive is legally cut and dried. Kind of like Al Capone being done for tax evasion.

paddymacsporran

Nick,

Assumptions are not fact. And that's not an assumption. You cannot just twist the words to suit your viewpoint, people will think more of you if you admit to that. At the moment you look like a right lemon!!!

Chips Lovell

NickDrake wrote: »

Still defending him? In says in the article that it says for certain a blood transfusion took place. What more do you want?

NickDrake banned for 24 hours. Don't say you weren't warned:

el tonto wrote: »

Please stop misrepresenting other people's positions. If you continue along this line, I'll consider it trolling. Thanks.

Continually misrepresenting what other users and the media are saying is dragging this thread way off topic.

paddymacsporran

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/502242/contador-case-splits-experts-opinions.html

To get back to the topic - I suspect a long drawn out legal battle if Contador gets banned. Wonder if the UCI will give him a token under the carpet ban for 3 months over the winter?

niceonetom

paddymacsporran wrote: »

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/502242/contador-case-splits-experts-opinions.html

To get back to the topic - I suspect a long drawn out legal battle if Contador gets banned. Wonder if the UCI will give him a token under the carpet ban for 3 months over the winter?

I think there will be a bit of cost-benefit analysis going on at UCI HQ.

If they throw everything into nailing Contador they go some way to giving themselves some (needed) credibility. On the other hand, as promoters of the sport, banning the TDF winner for blood doping drives another nail into the coffin of the public perception of the sport as a whole.

On the other hand (yes, the third one) they could be tempted to split the difference and give Berto the minimum ban they think they could float as acceptable to the media and try to play it as being tough - though I don't think that would actually work at all.

What I'd like to see happen is the UCI get its house in order (that would necessarily mean the end of the McQuaid era) and eventually establish some sort of separate entity responsible for sanctioning those caught doping, thereby getting rid of the conflict of interests that robs them of credibility and us of a sense that things could ever get better.

Who knows what'll really happen though... this plasticiser thing is a game changer. Just like there was a swathe of big riders caught in when EPO and then CERA first became reliably testable, I think we can expect this to bring yet more big name riders to our attention.

RobFowl

niceonetom wrote: »

What I'd like to see happen is the UCI get its house in order (that would necessarily mean the end of the McQuaid era) and eventually establish some sort of separate entity responsible for sanctioning those caught doping, thereby getting rid of the conflict of interests that robs them of credibility and us of a sense that things could ever get better.

Who knows what'll really happen though... this plasticiser thing is a game changer. Just like there was a swathe of big riders caught in when EPO and then CERA first became reliably testable, I think we can expect this to bring yet more big name riders to our attention.

blorg wrote: »

Personally I suspect he will get a two year ban on the Clenbuterol positive; there is no minimum or threshold and even proving food contamination does not automatically waive a ban only give the option of a reduction. I may personally believe the guy had a transfusion but I think that is less likely to stick legally with the status of the test. The Clenbuterol positive is legally cut and dried. Kind of like Al Capone being done for tax evasion.

I'd tend to agree with both these points of view.

Russman

niceonetom wrote: »

I think there will be a bit of cost-benefit analysis going on at UCI HQ.

If they throw everything into nailing Contador they go some way to giving themselves some (needed) credibility. On the other hand, as promoters of the sport, banning the TDF winner for blood doping drives another nail into the coffin of the public perception of the sport as a whole.

On the other hand (yes, the third one) they could be tempted to split the difference and give Berto the minimum ban they think they could float as acceptable to the media and try to play it as being tough - though I don't think that would actually work at all.

What I'd like to see happen is the UCI get its house in order (that would necessarily mean the end of the McQuaid era) and eventually establish some sort of separate entity responsible for sanctioning those caught doping, thereby getting rid of the conflict of interests that robs them of credibility and us of a sense that things could ever get better.

Who knows what'll really happen though... this plasticiser thing is a game changer. Just like there was a swathe of big riders caught in when EPO and then CERA first became reliably testable, I think we can expect this to bring yet more big name riders to our attention.

Totally agree with that, but if they did ban him for, say, 2 years, rather than drive a nail into the coffin of public perception, I think the first option that it might give some cedibility would be a more likely outcome. At some point the UCI need to be seen as getting tough on doping and not just playing lip service, no point in them telling us they are tough on it, it needs to be demonstrated. I think its fair to say the public perception of cycling is pretty much in the gutter anyway, positive test after positive test.......after positive test.
If they come up with some sort of fudge then everybody's a loser IMO.

That article from a few pages back about Bernhard Kohl was depressing reading, and the linked articles were even more so.

Diarmuid

Douwe De Boer, a Dutch professor at the University of Maastricht and an antidoping expert in clenbuterol, has told Spanish newspaper MARCA that "the contaminated food is, scientifically speaking, the most probable [explanation for clenbuterol] and the transfusion theory, the least probable."

....<further down the article>

Meanwhile, De Boer was hired by Contador to help clear his name, according to Contador on the UCI's recommendation.

What's worse, Contador hiring a scientist to come up with an excuse... I mean reason or the UCI recommending he hire him?

paddymacsporran

I reckon the UCI will go for the fudge scenario, if they do that is disappointing.

I base my assumption on the way they run the sport - IMHO they leave themselves wide open to accusations of them colluding with alleged dopers. They have not covered themselves in glory over this episode either.

Russman

So, if I'm understanding this correctly (and apologies if I'm not), and taking a little bit of a leap, the UCI are actually trying to help him clear his name ? Thats like the judge in a court helping the defendant ffs ! Hard to know what to say.

Lumen

Russman wrote: »

Thats like the judge in a court helping the defendant ffs ! Hard to know what to say.

I think that happens a lot. It's when the prosecution helps the defendant that you've got a problem. Oh wait, is that the UCI too?

Quigs Snr

From reading all of this, it looks like some sort of punishment is on the cards for sure, even if it is just a token one from the UCI. I hope they have the courage to do what needs to be done. One unfortunate side effect is that Schleck will be awarded the 2010 TDF. Not sure how I feel about that, given his closeness to his brother and some of the incidents that his brother has been involved in in relation to Fuentes, my gut feeling is that Schleck is no more worthy a champion than Contador. Still one down at least, probably another 200 to go.

100Suns

A ban seems inevitable, followed by maybe a year of AC and the UCI engaging the media with a barrage of highly paid medi/legal/epidemiological/actuarial/whatever your havin' type boffins, followed by both AC and UCI deeming the conclusion of the investigation process as 'inconclusive', followed by a queue of pro teams vying for AC's signature when the ban is up (assuming Saxo Bank don't develop a moral conscience in the interim, which, being a bank, is something of a long shot). Vino, Basso, Ricco etc should be a great source of strength for Alberto in these difficult times.

Junior

I'm still confused over something with regards the plasticizer test, since it's an unvalidated test, who ordered it be carried out or why was it carried out, to me it had looked like that either the UCI (God forbid) or Wada was lining up some evidence to force Contador to take the full 2 year ban.

Now I don't the UCI would be that brave, but someone had to order the test or had to have the idea. The only other thing that's emerged from this is sure certainty that the UCI can no longer act as police, judge, jury, prosecutor and jailer.

RobFowl

Junior wrote: »

I'm still confused over something with regards the plasticizer test, since it's an unvalidated test, who ordered it be carried out or why was it carried out, to me it had looked like that either the UCI (God forbid) or Wada was lining up some evidence to force Contador to take the full 2 year ban.

Now I don't the UCI would be that brave, but someone had to order the test or had to have the idea. The only other thing that's emerged from this is sure certainty that the UCI can no longer act as police, judge, jury, prosecutor and jailer.

New tests are being developed all the time.Fort hem to be fully the process have to proven to be consistent and reliable and also able to be repeated by different labs repeatedly.

The MMR scare a few years ago was provoked by a doctor who published a paper claiming the measles component was responsible for autism. His finding were looked at and multiple centres around the world were not able to recreate his findings.
This Plasticizer test needs the same level of scrutiny to be fully validated. To be foolproof it also needs to be tested at the CAS.

Chips Lovell

Once the test if fully validated, what are the chances of them retesting samples taken this year I wonder?;)

Diarmuid

I'd say a pretty good chance of one Jeff Novitzky being interested in that test.

cormpat

el tonto wrote: »

Once the test if fully validated, what are the chances of them retesting samples taken this year I wonder?;)

Steady On! The lanterne Rouge could end up being the Maillot Jaune.

Junior

RobFowl wrote: »

New tests are being developed all the time.Fort hem to be fully the process have to proven to be consistent and reliable and also able to be repeated by different labs repeatedly.

The MMR scare a few years ago was provoked by a doctor who published a paper claiming the measles component was responsible for autism. His finding were looked at and multiple centres around the world were not able to recreate his findings.
This Plasticizer test needs the same level of scrutiny to be fully validated. To be foolproof it also needs to be tested at the CAS.

I 100% understand new tests have to be carried to validate, but it seems like this test was attempted as a chance to muddy the waters on Contador i.e. you've had a transfusion we think but can't prove it but we'll throw enough innuendo to make it stick.

Two other things stand out, the fact the test was carried out in the Cologne lab due to the AFLD dispute meant that if he Contador was tested in a French lab he wouldn't have tested positive. The second one is who the f*ck is leaking test results before they are confirmed ?

niceonetom

Diarmuid wrote: »

I'd say a pretty good chance of one Jeff Novitzky being interested in that test.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/10/05/2010-10-05_lance_armstrong_blood_and_urine_samples_could_be_subject_to_new_antidoping_test_.html#ixzz11Ynew167

There's already speculation about just that in the American press, though it still seems to be speculation. The legal issues of retro active testing with a still-not-quite-validated test are many - any decent legal team would, I think, go to work trying to rule out the admissibility of blood-samples, questioning the reliability of the test, trying for plausible explanations of plasticisers present etc.

I have a question:
Are IVs of any type banned except for medical necessity? A saline drip is not unheard of for rehydration in certain circumstances and, hey, it gets hot in July. Would that be permitted under doping regulations if LA or AC could produce some medico willing to say they administered a necessary saline drip?

It's just about creating enough doubt to provide wiggle room.