The Contador Appeal [mod warning post #3]

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

Spanish steak is not exactly famous for its quality.

He should have stuck to pork. Iberico ham, chorizo, chistorra anyone???

Inquitus

At the end of the day he's lost 2 grand tour victories and got a 2/3 of a season ban. Kinda stupid to backdate it given he was riding the whole time!

Morrisseeee

..............and ironically he probably rode clean last year !!
So, with all those wins last year, who benefits now? ie. I reckon anyone who finished 2nd to him last year, their promoted win will have a hollow feeling to it.
(Especially the velogames winners.........:pac:)
edit: some reports are saying he gets a €2m fine aswell

bcmf

Aln_S wrote: »

Justice, Maybe, but a great day for Cycling it's not!

Ditto for what happened last week with LA.

NickDrake

I know it is a farce that we has been able to race the last two years. Seeing him riding made me feel sick.

But at least they finally caught him after all these years.

NickDrake

Aln_S wrote: »

Justice, Maybe, but a great day for Cycling it's not!

It is a great day - We are finally get the cheats and he is the greatest of the modern era

velo.2010

Lumen wrote: »

Spanish steak is not exactly famous for its quality.

True, some smoked meats fecked up Michael Johnson's Barcelona Olympic quest in 1992.

Anyway, fairly disappointed but if it has to be done to help send a message that no-one is safe any longer then so be it!

Hope the USADA nail Armstrong SOON!

niceonetom

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

He's being stripped of all his results for the time he continued to race after testing positive. So in effect, he wasn't racing.

But no one knew that at the time so, in effect he was. It's not like when he attacked on Etna the rest of the GC contenders knew there was no need to chase him down.

It's not good enough removing him from the history books - dopers need to be removed from the actual race. Allowing those who have failed a test to continue to race while the incredibly long appeals procedure lumbers on is ridiculous. It makes a mockery of every race that the then alleged and now confirmed dopers enters. Is he there or isn't he? "We'll know in 18 months, maybe" is not a good enough answer to this. It's farcical.

Maybe it's time to remove the excessive presumption of innocence extended to those found to have failed a test. Riders should at least be suspended without prejudice while the investigation is completed. This might also speed the process up as it would no longer be in the appellant's interests to slow proceedings down as much as possible - Contador very nearly managed to spend his entire ban still racing or (racing* if you prefer). The purpose of a ban can't just be to nullify results gained from the time out, but to actually exclude dopers from races.

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

It's not good enough removing him from the history books - dopers need to be removed from the actual race. Allowing those who have failed a test to continue to race while the incredibly long appeals procedure lumbers on is ridiculous. It makes a mockery of every race that the then alleged and now confirmed dopers enters. Is he there or isn't he? "We'll know in 18 months, maybe" is not a good enough answer to this. It's farcical.

Then you have the prospect of someone being unable to race and later being found innocent. Either way, you have a less than ideal situation.

Fr D Maugire

NickDrake wrote: »

I know it is a farce that we has been able to race the last two years. Seeing him riding made me feel sick.

But at least they finally caught him after all these years.

I admired Contador as a cyclist but he was caught and punished even if it was for a ridiculously low amount of a product that isnt really performance enhancing.

The whole revision of results the last 18 months is also very frustrating, not that is shouldnt happen. Just the fact that he was allowed to race and win.

I guess the fact that Armstrong has escapded punishment again and looks unlikely to be ever punished just makes it hard to take. Does anyone really believe Contador was somehow worse than Armstrong.

ciarano

Goes back to same old argument anyone caught/associated with Drugs/Misuse from cyclist/Management/Personnell/Ex Pros right down to the bottle washer should be life banned from cycling.

Another recruit from Bjarne Riis caught

Mind how ye go on the San Miguel Lads + Lassies

Lumen

ciarano wrote: »

Goes back to same old argument anyone caught/associated with Drugs/Misuse from cyclist/Management/Personnell/Ex Pros right down to the bottle washer should be life banned from cycling.

Bad idea. Harsher penalties mean catching fewer people, particularly using the bio passport (which relies on a delicate balance of probabilities based on statistical analysis).

If a positive clenbuterol test carried a life ban, I would bet money that Contador would not have been sanctioned.

ciarano

If Armstrong or any Pro was up to no good and can stare their Partners even worse their kids in the eyes and lie well thats just F**@ed up :eek:

ciarano

True Lumen its a bit like Drink Driving should be zero then no excuses as for a life ban being to harsh i guess your right have to keep jobs for the lads after the bike racing :mad:is over its like a big circus

Morrisseeee

Are there any 'tweets' from other Pro cyclists about it yet ?? ie. some interesting comments are likely.

velopeloton

"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. 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."

The CAS judgement.

2 years seems very harsh.

Dodge

ciarano wrote: »

If Armstrong or any Pro was up to no good and can stare their Partners even worse their kids in the eyes and lie well thats just F**@ed up :eek:

Calm down fellah, I lie to my wife and kid on a daily basis.

"what do you thinkof this daddy?"

"its lovely honey"

its been handled horrendously by the UCI. 18 months simply isn't good enough. i doubt Andy Schleck is celebrating either

niceonetom

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Then you have the prospect of someone being unable to race and later being found innocent. Either way, you have a less than ideal situation.

In any legal system there's always a balance between the danger of wrongfully punishing the innocent and wrongfully exonerating the guilty.

In criminal cases it behoves society to err on the side of innocence but, despite it's trapping and jargon, sport is not real life. The UCI, CAS etc are not public bodies administering civil law. They're private establishments tasked with policing a part of the entertainment industry we call "professional sport". They can set the balance wherever they see fit to preserve their concern - in this case cycling. The balance they have struck does not work, in my humble opinion.

Yes, I know that in some jurisdictions doping is illegal under criminal law, but that's not what I'm talking about and not the remit of CAS, UCI or the Spanish cycling federation.

Chips Lovell

Dodge wrote: »

its been handled horrendously by the UCI. 18 months simply isn't good enough. i doubt Andy Schleck is celebrating either

He got two years, which is the maximum he could have gotten.

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

In any legal system there's always a balance between the danger of wrongfully punishing the innocent and wrongfully exonerating the guilty.

In criminal cases it behoves society to err on the side of innocence but, despite it's trapping and jargon, sport is not real life. The UCI, CAS etc are not public bodies administering civil law. They're private establishments tasked with policing a part of the entertainment industry we call "professional sport". They can set the balance wherever they see fit to preserve their concern - in this case cycling. The balance they have struck does not work, in my humble opinion.

Yes, I know that in some jurisdictions doping is illegal under criminal law, but that's not what I'm talking about and not the remit of CAS, UCI or the Spanish cycling federation.

I think if you force someone not to compete while they are waiting for a verdict, you could open yourself up to legal action for preventing someone from earning a living without proper justification.

Junior

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

He got two years, which is the maximum he could have gotten.

I think he was referring to how long it took to be sentenced

Chips Lovell

Junior wrote: »

I think he was referring to how long it took to be sentenced

Ah. In that case, blame the Spanish cycling federation, which passed the buck on it.

niceonetom

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I think if you force someone not to compete while they are waiting for a verdict, you could open yourself up to legal action for preventing someone from earning a living without proper justification.

Not if that was the arrangement they agreed to. The terms and conditions of various contracts would need to reflect a change in stance of the governing body, but I don't think it's impossible to suspend people from a job while they're under investigation.

Dodge

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Ah. In that case, blame the Spanish cycling federation, which passed the buck on it.

I was, and yeah, the Spanish federation have to share the blame. I don't think anyone comes out of it well tbh.

Whoever's at fault, the whole process has to be quicker.

NickDrake

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I admired Contador as a cyclist but he was caught and punished even if it was for a ridiculously low amount of a product that isnt really performance enhancing.

The whole revision of results the last 18 months is also very frustrating, not that is shouldnt happen. Just the fact that he was allowed to race and win.

I guess the fact that Armstrong has escapded punishment again and looks unlikely to be ever punished just makes it hard to take. Does anyone really believe Contador was somehow worse than Armstrong.

The issue is not the small amount, it is how it got there. We all know what the wada and the UCI argue was the reason it got in his blood and it these were the practices he was undergoign then he deserves his ban and should have gotten life in my opinion.

Captain Havoc

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

He'll more than likely have to refund his prize money. What advertisers choose to pay him and how much riding he has in his legs is beyond the remit of sporting authorities.

My understanding is that there's to be another hearing, where he maybe forced to hand over 2 million, but I can't remember if that was Swiss Francs, Euros or Dollars.

ednwireland

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has issued a lengthy statement confirming its two-year ban imposed on Alberto Contador. CAS also made know that a request for a 2.485.000 Euro fine made by the UCI will be ruled on "at a later stage".

:eek:

details here
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-cas-to-rule-on-2-4-million-euro-fine-later

2.45 million euro fine that would dent contadors bank balance

biomed32

To be honest I am happy at the judgment, if not a little saddened that it took so long to come. Realistically I felt that the ban should have been put in place in the first instance rather then the spanish cycling organisation allowing him to continue racing. As a result, he is being stripped of his titles which is horrible but at the same time he will be back in the saddle come August, hopefully a cleaner and more humble cyclist who will prehaps not make the same mistake again. I could add more in relation to biomarker testing for clenbuterol in animals and the european union but whats the point. Judgment has been passed

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

Not if that was the arrangement they agreed to. The terms and conditions of various contracts would need to reflect a change in stance of the governing body, but I don't think it's impossible to suspend people from a job while they're under investigation.

True.

Another thing worth pointing out, and it's something I forgot about initially, is that you are suspended until the national authority makes a ruling. So Contador didn't ride for five months until the RFEC made a decision. He only started riding again after that.

So in this case, we're talking about a rule change preventing people from riding until a CAS decision is taken.

furiousox

From bbc.co.uk

"The ban is backdated and, as such, Contador can resume competition on 5 August, 2012 - two years after he was informed of his failed test."

2 year ban indeed. :rolleyes:

RobFowl

On the bright side Nico now finished 14th in the 2010 TDF and Cadel Evans moved intot the top 25 (with a broken elbow remember).
Nico's nemesis John Gadret moved into 3rd on onto the podium of the 2011 Giro as well.
While Andy had no drug/doping blemishes (not like Frank "wimmins trouble" Schleck) Scarponi is one of the few who got banned as a result of Puerto and serves a 15 month ban as "friend of Brillo".
LA also moves up a place in his final tour

Captain Havoc

RobFowl wrote: »

LA also moves up a place in his final tour

finishing ahead of Contador :pac:

Chips Lovell

Saxo Bank are having their World Tour licence reviewed. Contador was responsible for more than two thirds of its points last year.

Hail 2 Da Thief

Better late than never I guess. I hope they follow through with that €2.5m fine & hit him where it really hurts!

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Are there any 'tweets' from other Pro cyclists about it yet ?? ie. some interesting comments are likely.

Cav:

Regardless of the outcome for Contador, I just wish, for the sake of our sport & everyone in it, that a decision had been made sooner.

Peterx

Purely in terms of the events he's been in he has affected the ebb and flow of the race on the day and has directly changed how the other contenders acted whenever he went up the road or made a move they had to try and cover.

The real winners of the last two grand tours would have preferred to find out on the podium at the end of the race as opposed to a training camp in Majorca months later.

As the earlier poster said if he was banned from racing until the appeal decision was reached this would have been settled months ago.

And after all this CAS say perhaps it was actually the beef!

Morrisseeee

Peterx wrote: »

As the earlier poster said if he was banned from racing until the appeal decision was reached this would have been settled months ago.

And after all this CAS say perhaps it was actually the beef!

Yep, if he had been banned from the outset it would have been a much better scenario.

No CAS said it was a contaminated food supplement, and at the pico-gramme level, ie. that's why I think the whole result stinks, how can he be responsible for such a micro dose, it's unrealistic. From the outset I actually thought it was a blood transfusion, and maybe it was, but the whole 18 month saga has been an absolute sham
Hopefully lessons will be learned.......

ROK ON

Is this it, in that is this case closed.

Can he appeal in any way (the ban, the length of the ban, the fine etc etc).

Is this a finality?

RobFowl

ROK ON wrote: »

Is this it, in that is this case closed.

Can he appeal in any way (the ban, the length of the ban, the fine etc etc).

Is this a finality?

He can only appeal on the proceedural aspects of the case. IE if he can show CAS did not stick to the rules when processing the case.

Seems Contadors defense was weak (as was the case agaist him!).

Contador: It was contaminated beef and it was such a low dose it'd have no effect.
CAS. It was probably a food supplement but might have been the beef and it was too low to have any effect. BUT it is banned at any level so tough.....

velopeloton

ROK ON wrote: »

Is this it, in that is this case closed.

Can he appeal in any way (the ban, the length of the ban, the fine etc etc).

Is this a finality?

He can appeal to Swiss high court if he believes procedure was not followed properly.

He can appeal to European Court of Human Rights if he believes the verdict is unjust.

boege

This is a classic copout.

Contador presented himself at the Giro with a valid licence and competed without failing any test. For the respect of the other riders his Giro win should stand. If the spanish ruling can be overturned and valid licences revoked then why give then authority in the matter at all. What we have now is a suituation where valid licences may not be valid (by later ruling)and this dimishes the sport.

He should lose his tour title and his punishment should start from today taking account of the 5 month sentence he served while awaiting the spanish verdict.

There was no question of guilt, the rules were clear and the presence of the banned substance was never in question. The ruling has only to take account of evidence supporting non-intentional use. In this case I assume neither butcher, nor farmer nor cow were produced.

The whole process is a mess and Cavandish has summed it up right. No one wins here.

velopeloton

boege wrote: »

This is a classic copout.

Contador presented himself at the Giro with a valid licence and competed without failing any test. For the respect of the other riders his Giro win should stand. If the spanish ruling can be overturned and valid licences revoked then why give then authority in the matter at all. What we have now is a suituation where valid licences may not be valid (by later ruling)and this dimishes the sport.

He should lose his tour title and his punishment should start from today taking account of the 5 month sentence he served while awaiting the spanish verdict.

There was no question of guilt, the rules were clear and the presence of the banned substance was never in question. The ruling has only to take account of evidence supporting non-intentional use. In this case I assume neither butcher, nor farmer nor cow were produced.

The whole process is a mess and Cavandish has summed it up right. No one wins here.

He couldn't produce the evidence, he'd already eaten it.

Lumen

velopeloton wrote: »

He couldn't produce the evidence, he'd already eaten it.

Isn't it so annoying when the dog eats your homework?

mcgratheoin

Morrisseeee wrote: »

how can he be responsible for such a micro dose, it's unrealistic.

That's the whole principle of doping control though - if you get rid of the strict liability then you open the system up to even more abuse than at present. What's interesting for me is that Contador's team never went down the supplements route. If there are contaminated supplements out there, Contador would have had a pretty strong defence. All he had to do was produce an off the shelf (legal) supplement and show that it had clenbuterol present.

boege

Lumen wrote: »

Isn't it so annoying when the dog eats your homework?

Ruff justice!

Kav0777

boege wrote: »

Ruff justice!

I'd be barking mad!

McTigs

the whole thing is a-paw-ling

Dodge

boege wrote: »

The ruling has only to take account of evidence supporting non-intentional use. In this case I assume neither butcher, nor farmer nor cow were produced

But how did they know it was in beef? All they said was it could've been that. I don't think a suggestion should be treated as evidence. Has as much validity as saying "I was walking along when a syringe just attacked me and ran off..."

Izoard

Interesting that he nailed a lie-dector test on the blood transfusion issue...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2012/02/matt_slater.html

Also interesting that Schleck and Scarponi are backing Bertie all the way...

Lumen

Izoard wrote: »

Interesting that he nailed a lie-dector test on the blood transfusion issue...

A very specific set of questions asked by his own defence team.

http://www.deltaworld.org/sport/TAS-admitted-the-evidence-of-the-polygraph-of-Alberto-Contador/

- Do you submitted to a 20 or 21 July 2010 blood transfusion? (NOT)
- Did you receive a transfusion 20 or July 21? (NOT).
- Swallowed you deliberately clenbuterol 20 or 21 July 2010? (NOT).
- Between 20 and July 21, 2010. swallowed you deliberately clenbuterol? (NOT). - Did you have knowledge that his agency was receiving Clenbuterol, in any way, 20-21 July 2010? (NOT).


Can anyone find better details on this polygraph test?

Now do it again with Kimmage asking the questions. :pac:

RobFowl

Lie detectors useless and have been proven to be easily manipulated.
Scarponi was never particularly rependent about his own doping but am a bit surprised at Schlecks reaction. Suspect that might be the public line but privately I'd say he's seething....