# Spanish Cycling Fed to possibly drop ban on Contador?!?



## otiebob (Jun 25, 2002)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-ban-to-be-overturned

Wtf. I can't see WADA/UCI accepting this if it is in fact true. Wow...


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Reassuring, the Spanish Fed is back to it's '_protect it's big names_' ways.


----------



## jd3 (Oct 8, 2004)

Even if he does skate, UCI will appeal and keep him out of this year's tour.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

It would almost be better if Spain threw it out because there would be such an incredible backlash that UCI and whomever else would make an example out of fingerbang. 

At least that is what I hope would happen.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

I was ok with the obvious compromise worked out. But this appeal and the current leaks have put me into a "hang 'em high" mood. Hope AC has to sit out 2 full years now and then 2 two years on a continental team. Then he can do the Pantani cocaine thing. Good riddance. 

Very telling quote from the article today: ". There is a fight against doping and we are standing together with the sport's interests." Same sentence, but two completely different things.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

mmoose said:


> I was ok with the obvious compromise worked out. But this appeal and the current leaks have put me into a "hang 'em high" mood. Hope AC has to sit out 2 full years now and then 2 two years on a continental team. Then he can do the Pantani cocaine thing. Good riddance.
> 
> Very telling quote from the article today: ". There is a fight against doping and we are standing together with the sport's interests." Same sentence, but two completely different things.


Wow, wishing someone commits suicide? A bike racer? I wonder what you would wish to people who actually hurt you...


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

Dan Gerous said:


> Wow, wishing someone commits suicide? A bike racer? I wonder what you would wish to people who actually hurt you...



Yeah, that comment _was_ a little harsh, IMO. I _do_ hope that Contador gets the two year ban that he most likely deserves, though.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dan Gerous said:


> Wow, wishing someone commits suicide? A bike racer? I wonder what you would wish to people who actually hurt you...


Cuz he beat Lance! Harumph!!!!!!!


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Regardless of anything AC is a laughing stock. Here's to a long ban with the hopes that he puts on about 50 pounds.


----------



## Hula Hoop (Feb 4, 2009)

I would hasten to at least admit the possibility that, rather than being a laughing
stock, the other riders are thinking, glad it wasn't me who got caught.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

I haven't seen any indication that the UCI would oppose whatever the Spanish do in regard to Contador. I mean McQuaid already suggested the shorter length ban, so it wouldn't be a big surprise if the UCI goes along with the non-penalty. Something like "well the rules say the decision is up to them and it's a tough case....".


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

And so would end doping control from any country.....

I'd like to see UCI ban all Spanish riders until Spain aligns with the rules, if that is how it unfolds.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

AdamM said:


> I haven't seen any indication that the UCI would oppose whatever the Spanish do in regard to Contador. I mean McQuaid already suggested the shorter length ban, so it wouldn't be a big surprise if the UCI goes along with the non-penalty. Something like "well the rules say the decision is up to them and it's a tough case....".


A non penalty ends professional racing as we know it. In the end, how he ended up in th mess is a non issue. As the rules are written, he has to be punished. If they do nothing the rules have no meaning and the few sponsors left run for the hills. They gave him a compromise deal which should have ended the matter. Anything else makes it continue and get worse.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

This could get bigger than the UCI / Spanish Federation. The IOC is watching this with interest. The main reason that the IOC removed baseball from the Olympic docket in a 2005 vote was its drug issues and baseball's collective "Meh" attitude about confronting them. Hence, no baseball in London and beyond.

So, suppose the UCI decides to not suspend Contador. Let's also assume that the Novitzky investigation turns up all manner of doping and UCI complicity in coverups during the L.A. era, would the IOC force the UCI to immediately clean house and clean up under threat of being thrown out of the Olympics? Imagine Road / MTB / BMX / Track all tossed out beginning in 2016 because of rampant semi-condoned doping.

Think about it. The TV ratings will not suffer nor will global sponsors back out of the Olympics if cycling gets the boot. But, how many sponsors would flee cycling as a result of the black eye received from such a ban? To the general public, the message would be that cycling in all forms is not a legitimate sport because they are all drugged up. What cell phone / computer / sports drink / bank / etc. wants that press? Bike manufacturer's would get hit very hard - who's wants to ride a bike or buy one for their kids because pedaling is just for druggies?


----------



## M-theory (Jul 16, 2009)

I work in an analytical lab(though not biological in nature) with GC and GC/MS equipment and can tell you that 50 picograms is an incredibly small "positive' ...and should not really be allowed to to have so many repercussions on the career of anyone in any sport. 

Sample contaminations can and do occur routinely. Fortunately most contaminations are below the threshold of reportablility..and so it is written off as zero. But in this case, 50 picograms ,which is a ridiculously small amount, was reported as a genuine positive. 

For most labs the RL(reportable limit) for the compound found in Contador's blood is 2ppb, which is 40X the amount Contador had in his blood. Or in other words, most labs would not even have seen the faintest hint of the substance. It would have been 1/40th the lowest amount that they are able to detect!

That sort of extremely low 'positive' is questionable and may very well have been the result of something he ate. To make an example out of Contador, who has been great for the sport, based on such meager and questionable evidence seems absurd.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

"Absurd" or not, there is no legal amount allowed, no matter how small.
That rule probably should be changed, but it can't be changed retroactively. Other riders have suffered sanctions from ridiculously small amounts of various substances in their bodies -why should AC get a free pass?
He shouldn't.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Looks like they are letting he off and he is going to race Wednesday
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/depo...o/Contador/elpepudep/20110214elpepudep_10/Tes


----------



## Dan0930 (May 28, 2004)

I work in an analytical lab that is biological in nature. Even though 50 picograms is low positive is positive. Doping is doping you can't just dope a little bit. Its like being preggers you either are or you are not. Zero tolerance 



M-theory said:


> I work in an analytical lab(though not biological in nature) with GC and GC/MS equipment and can tell you that 50 picograms is an incredibly small "positive' ...and should not really be allowed to to have so many repercussions on the career of anyone in any sport.
> 
> Sample contaminations can and do occur routinely. Fortunately most contaminations are below the threshold of reportablility..and so it is written off as zero. But in this case, 50 picograms ,which is a ridiculously small amount, was reported as a genuine positive.
> 
> ...


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

well.. Lance is not the only one with good lawyers


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*hmmm, not surprised*

He is Spanish, and can win GT's. Why are you all surprised?????


----------



## tranzformer (Dec 27, 2007)

RFEC is a joke if this goes down. :mad2:


----------



## Kai Winters (Aug 23, 2009)

The spanish cycling authority has worked hard trying to figure out a way to polish a turd and all they get in return for their hard work is criticism...shame on you all...
Contador is a wonderful human being and an awesome athlete who is being unfairly punished for the mere eating of meat.

Shame on you all !

The spanish cycling authority, UCI and WADA are wonderful organizations that want to make the sport better by having a fair and unified method of testing athletes to protect them and the sport from the criminals that are forcing illegal drugs into them.


Sarcasm ended...
Contador is a dirty druggy and should be banned.
The spanish cycling authority, the UCI and WADA are pathetic organizations that are out for themselves and their own control over sport. 
They should be ashamed that it has taken over 7 months for this fiasco to be at this point.
It is a pathetic situation and I'm waiting for the entire situation to implode so we can start again...hopefully by first removing all the corrupt individuals that head up these organizations.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*not the first*



tranzformer said:


> RFEC is a joke if this goes down. :mad2:


They have been a joke, take a look at their past history


----------



## Gee3 (Jan 31, 2006)

Meanwhile, Landis is hitting himself on the head and saying, "I should have used that tainted defense for the beer I drank!"


----------



## DiegoMontoya (Apr 11, 2010)

mmoose said:


> I was ok with the obvious compromise worked out. But this appeal and the current leaks have put me into a "hang 'em high" mood. Hope AC has to sit out 2 full years now and then 2 two years on a continental team. Then he can do the Pantani cocaine thing. Good riddance.
> 
> Very telling quote from the article today: ". There is a fight against doping and we are standing together with the sport's interests." Same sentence, but two completely different things.


Actually, your post is really indicative of someone who is a bit mentally unhinged. Wishing someone death. Stay classy, pal.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2011)

*True dat.*



biobanker said:


> And so would end doping control from any country.....
> 
> I'd like to see UCI ban all Spanish riders until Spain aligns with the rules, if that is how it unfolds.


I actually brought this up on a thread on Velonews once after the Valverde fiasco. If Spain won't punish its riders for doping then Spanish riders can't race. Simple.

I have more respect for the pile of dog crap I stepped in this morning than I do for the Spanish Cycling Federation and Contadork.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

M-theory said:


> I work in an analytical lab(though not biological in nature) with GC and GC/MS equipment and can tell you that 50 picograms is an incredibly small "positive' ...and should not really be allowed to to have so many repercussions on the career of anyone in any sport.
> 
> For most labs the RL(reportable limit) for the compound found in Contador's blood is 2ppb, which is 40X the amount Contador had in his blood. Or in other words, most labs would not even have seen the faintest hint of the substance. It would have been 1/40th the lowest amount that they are able to detect!


I am confused. If 1 picogram = 1 part per billion (ppg), how is 50 < 2 (the reportable limit)?


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

What makes this especially laughable is the reversal. One month ago, they recommended a year, now they are convinced that no doping occured? What, the previous 6 months were not enough to figure that out? No, pure and simple, they caved and it will end up making them look reckless and idiotic when the UCI, as it must, appeals to the CAS and has this overturned. Just like Landis, I'm not guilty, no wait, I really am. Not just stupid, but insulting.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

DiegoMontoya said:


> Actually, your post is really indicative of someone who is a bit mentally unhinged. Wishing someone death. Stay classy, pal.


Sorry guys. Hang em high was more a "pay the full penalty of the law", not a call to violent action...

Full two year ban, then no Pro Team can sign for an additional two years. 

(not a fan boi either..)


----------



## slimjw (Jul 30, 2008)

M-theory said:


> I work in an analytical lab(though not biological in nature) with GC and GC/MS equipment and can tell you that 50 picograms is an incredibly small "positive' ...and should not really be allowed to to have so many repercussions on the career of anyone in any sport.
> 
> Sample contaminations can and do occur routinely. Fortunately most contaminations are below the threshold of reportablility..and so it is written off as zero. But in this case, 50 picograms ,which is a ridiculously small amount, was reported as a genuine positive.
> 
> ...


How many times do we have to address the arguments that "the amount found was extremely small" and "would have been of no competitive benefit?" 

First of all, the rules are crystal clear that any amount is illegal. 

Second, the amount of Clen found in Contador's sample is entirely consistent with the amount that would be found in someone who had transfused blood containing small amounts of the substance (I.E. Bert withdrew blood a little too soon after using Clen to cut up earlier in the season). Combine the half-life of the substance with the dilution caused by transfusing into the existing blood volume and the amount makes perfect sense. Let's not even bring the plasticizers tests into this. 

The fact that the offending sample was taken on the rest day before the Tourmalet stage only makes it more incriminating when you consider the many reports by confessed dopers of transfusing on rest days and before big stages. 

I love cycling, but am continually taken aback at the naivety and willful ignorance that permeates the doping conversation. Contador is most certainly a doper who was caught with his pants down and is now lying his @ss off about it. His status as a multiple TDF winner and potential breadwinner for the sport are the only reasons he hasn't already been excommunicated for 2 years of involuntary retirement. 

If the Spanish federation carry through with their intent to exonerate Contador I can only hope that the other governing bodies do not follow suit. Someone needs to man-up and do the right thing in this situation if they want the sport to have any semblance of credibility going forward.


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

Gee3 said:


> Meanwhile, Landis is hitting himself on the head and saying, "I should have used that tainted defense for the beer I drank!"


It was the beer & JD combo that did it! Don't they say to never mix & drink? He should have just stuck with the beer only without the chaser. Or is that to reduce the hangover? I can't remember, damn mondays.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

M-theory said:


> I work in an analytical lab(though not biological in nature) with GC and GC/MS equipment and can tell you that 50 picograms is an incredibly small "positive' ...and should not really be allowed to to have so many repercussions on the career of anyone in any sport.
> 
> Sample contaminations can and do occur routinely. Fortunately most contaminations are below the threshold of reportablility..and so it is written off as zero. But in this case, 50 picograms ,which is a ridiculously small amount, was reported as a genuine positive.
> 
> ...


Glad we have someone in the respective field. I was having to remember too much from analytical chemistry and toxicology, which weren't exactly things I enjoyed. 

If my math served me correctly, I think his serum concentration would have required him to take 1/100th of a tablet. How does one do that? On the same token, I question how accurate and precice the machine is with such minute concentrations. 

What is your take on the positive plasticiser? I see what it could potentially show, but I can think of many ways where the test wouldn't hold much weight.

I think the assumption that he transfused from when he was taking clenbuterol, but we should have detected differences from a transfusion way before the ultra low clenbuterol concentrations.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's _probably_ guilty, but I don't think the UCI has a very solid case.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

spade2you said:


> If my math served me correctly, I think his serum concentration would have required him to take 1/100th of a tablet. How does one do that? On the same token, I question how accurate and precice the machine is with such minute concentrations.


Not doubt it happened much earlier and that was all that was left in the transfusion.



spade2you said:


> What is your take on the positive plasticiser? I see what it could potentially show, but I can think of many ways where the test wouldn't hold much weight.


What is shows is that the blood had been stored sometime. This gives credence to the theory that the Clen was left over from earlier work done before the blood extraction.



spade2you said:


> I think the assumption that he transfused from when he was taking clenbuterol, but we should have detected differences from a transfusion way before the ultra low clenbuterol concentrations.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think he's _probably_ guilty, but I don't think the UCI has a very solid case.


The UCIs case is rock solid. Two samples both positive. Rules not in disarray. Positive result for ANY reason is grounds for immediate suspension followed by a term to be determined by the local ruling body unless overturned at the CAS as it will be should the RFEC continue on their idiotic course.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Not doubt it happened much earlier and that was all that was left in the transfusion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If he in fact was transfused, where was the evidence in a spike in hemoglobin and hematocrit? This should have been plain as day. The fact he might have used an older bag is possible, but hardly concrete. As part of the biological passport system, where's the evidence of clenbuterol use back then?

If this were rock solid, AC and his lawyers would have simply accepted the 1 year ban without any resistance. 

I'm not saying I think he's guilty or innocent, but the evidence isn't so great.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

spade2you said:


> If he in fact was transfused, where was the evidence in a spike in hemoglobin and hematocrit? This should have been plain as day. The fact he might have used an older bag is possible, but hardly concrete. As part of the biological passport system, where's the evidence of clenbuterol use back then?
> 
> If this were rock solid, AC and his lawyers would have simply accepted the 1 year ban without any resistance.
> 
> I'm not saying I think he's guilty or innocent, but the evidence isn't so great.


I was proposing one scenario. The fact is none of it matters. The standard is ZERO. He exceeded it. All the arguments aren't about guilt, they are about consequence. The UCI and later the CAS have NO CHOICE. If they let him off with no penalty, they admit they have no controls over the sport and the money is so great that they can't do that. The RFEC can afford to posture on this, they have nothing to lose. The UCI and CAS can't as it would have consequences no one can afford to have realized.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

The Weasel said:


> I am confused. If 1 picogram = 1 part per billion (ppg), how is 50 < 2 (the reportable limit)?


pico = 10^(-12), or parts per trillion.

this may seem small, but 1 pg concentration corresponds to about 10^10 (yes, 10 billion) molecules in a sample of a few grams or so. Remember Avogadro number from chemistry 101?

Whether or not this is easily detectable is not an issue of "I work in a lab and this is way too small to be detected", this amount and much. much smaller amounts are certainly detectable - scientists nowadays can see and identify single molecules and even atoms with the right tools - the issue is whether the particular lab had a technique developed for doing so.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Snpiperpilot said:


> I was proposing one scenario. The fact is none of it matters. The standard is ZERO. He exceeded it. All the arguments aren't about guilt, they are about consequence. The UCI and later the CAS have NO CHOICE. If they let him off with no penalty, they admit they have no controls over the sport and the money is so great that they can't do that. The RFEC can afford to posture on this, they have nothing to lose. The UCI and CAS can't as it would have consequences no one can afford to have realized.


That's fine and dandy, but what about Armstrong's (abuse of) hydrocortisone for a saddle sore? Seems we're more wheelin' ad dealin' when it's not a dirty Spaniard. If this is the standard, we need to hold EVERYONE to it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

spade2you said:


> That's fine and dandy, but what about Armstrong's (abuse of) hydrocortisone for a saddle sore? Seems we're more wheelin' ad dealin' when it's not a dirty Spaniard. If this is the standard, we need to hold EVERYONE to it.



In the end...It will come down to $$$$

If the "Powers that be" stand to make more money with him racing, he will race. If they stand to lose money, he will sit out for 2 years. 

It looks like he will have the charges dropped by the Spanish federation, but will lose out to the overall sanctioning bodies.

With Armstrong, at the time he was worth the risk due to the amount of money that he brought into the sport. With everything that has happened since, I'm not sure Contador has enough money to buy off the officials outside of Spain.

It's basically coming down to a cost/benefit analysis for the sanctioning bodies at hand...The Spanish have nothing to lose, the UCI/WADA/Etc. have a lot to lose.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

I cant wait for this to become official; there's hope for me yet.

If it is true that doping is now allowed, Im calling Pfizer tomorrow with a business proposal. I will put as much dope in me that my skin can retain inside my body and with any luck, I will be ready to race the tour by July. I plan on making monster gains each week. If my gains are merely spectacular, I will just shove more dope in. I may need to sleep with my mouth duct tape shut and a cork in my ass to stop the dope from oozing out it will be of such high pressure in my soon to be heroic veins.

In all seriousness, I hope that the UCI lets all hell loose on Spain - BAN ALL SPANISH RIDERS IF THEY LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE RULES.

I have to believe that we are about to see something that will change the sport forever. I am just uncertain if it will make it cleaner or wipe pro cycling off the map for a long time. I find it very difficult to believe that fingerbang walks with this. If Spain fails, and UCI/WADA fails, then please sponsors, pull your $$$ if he rides. If that fails, I hope he gets cut off and hip checked every ten feet of this years tour.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

55x11 said:


> pico = 10^(-12), or parts per trillion.
> 
> this may seem small, but 1 pg concentration corresponds to about 10^10 (yes, 10 billion) molecules in a sample of a few grams or so. Remember Avogadro number from chemistry 101?
> 
> Whether or not this is easily detectable is not an issue of "I work in a lab and this is way too small to be detected", this amount and much. much smaller amounts are certainly detectable - scientists nowadays can see and identify single molecules and even atoms with the right tools - the issue is whether the particular lab had a technique developed for doing so.


Two labs, two samples, same result. You can't argue the facts, all you can argue is the results.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

This would be OUTRAGEOUS if AC is let go without any suspension. An absolute EFFING JOKE. I read the _El Pais_ article and I can only hope that the supposed "close sources" are wrong. 

And what about the plasticizers that were also found in his blood which suggests autologous blood transfusions?

The message sent to the pro and even amateur peloton if they absolve AC is that if you have a little tiny bit of dope in your blood, make sure you have a good excuse in your back pocket -- you might get let off like AC. Absolution of AC would make Landis look like even more of a fool.


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

El Mundo (http://www.prensaescrita.com/adiario.php?codigo=S&pagina=http://www.elmundo.es) from Spain is also reporting that Contador will hear tomorrow that he is absolved. This on the basis of article 296 being applied by RFEC (a suspension can be eliminated if the rider has no fault or negligence).


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

Huh? Absolution of Contador will give Landis a ton of credence. After all, in his interview with Kimmage he clearly states that the UCI is complicit when it comes to stars doping.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

I doubt Contador races if the ban is lifted. If the CAS overturns the decision made by the Spanish federation, his ban will probably start from when he last raced. If he does race and it gets overturned, sitting out the last six months would be for nothing.

On another note, I bet Landis and Hamilton are regretting not taking out racing licenses in Spain. They're stories sounded about as credible as Contador's and look at the difference in how they were treated compared to Conti. Imagine if Bush had stated that there was no legality in suspending Landis.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> *If he in fact was transfused, where was the evidence in a spike in hemoglobin and hematocrit? This should have been plain as day*. The fact he might have used an older bag is possible, but hardly concrete. As part of the biological passport system, where's the evidence of clenbuterol use back then?
> 
> If this were rock solid, AC and his lawyers would have simply accepted the 1 year ban without any resistance.
> 
> I'm not saying I think he's guilty or innocent, but the evidence isn't so great.


No exactly. 

Contador was was using smaller, more frequent, transfusions, 300 ml. Combine with saline and you do not get a sharp spike. 

AC and his lawyers pushed because they know the Spanish Fed don't care.


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

If the ban is dropped cycling deserves every black eye possible. The WWF will be more credible in my opinion. I was never one to believe in the conspiracy that everyone was doping, but will from now on and just consider all pro cyclists dirty. Guilt by association.

All former cyclists banned should file suit for wrongful termination and seek lost wages and benefits, full instatement, and recover additional damages, including compensatory damages for emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

peter584 said:


> All former cyclists banned should file suit for wrongful termination and seek lost wages and benefits, full instatement, and recover additional damages, including compensatory damages for emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.


This is where I see a huge problem if Contador is let off the hook by everybody. Any rider that was banned under similar circumstances will have every legal right to go after WADA/UCI and any other sanctioning body that made them sit out. This then could spread over into other sports where similar bans were put into effect....essentially it will open up a legal can of worms that I don't think WADA/UCI want to go down.

However the Spanish Cycling Federation (or whoever they are) could give a rip because they haven't banned anybody under these circumstances.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

This is amazing. The Spanish authorities are an effing joke. This bit of horse s*%t better not stand with the UCI. If this clown manages to ride a major race this year that's it for me. I won't follow pro cycling any more. The sport is on life support as it is.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

It's very simple, if you don't support what they're doing with pro cycling don't buy anything that can be linked to sponsors associated with doping. 

That will mean a lot of use will have to go back to riding steel/Ti/Alu framed bikes made by independent small builders that sponsor no one. 

Your protest only matters when you hit them in the wallet.


----------



## slim 83 (Jul 6, 2008)

I know this may sound like a conspiracy, but does anyone else think maybe the Spanish Fed. told him they would impose a year ban that he should challenge and they would then drop the ban due to new evidence and a technicality in the rules?

I can't help but think the attitudes of the Spanish Fed. have not changed much since all the other problems. This make it look like they were ready to deal justice, but in light of new findings and a technicality they could not punish him. This would be a great way to get the UCI off their backs and make it look like they really tried this time.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

This turns my stomach, really. Time for me to go back to climbing and kayaking. I'm losing interest.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

slim 83 said:


> I know this may sound like a conspiracy, but does anyone else think maybe the Spanish Fed. told him they would impose a year ban that he should challenge and they would then drop the ban due to new evidence and a technicality in the rules?
> 
> I can't help but think the attitudes of the Spanish Fed. have not changed much since all the other problems. This make it look like they were ready to deal justice, but in light of new findings and a technicality they could not punish him. This would be a great way to get the UCI off their backs and make it look like they really tried this time.


If their goal was to get the UCI off their backs, this is the wrong way to do it. They had 6 months before their first recommendation. They haven't heard anything new, they just bowed to the political pressure that was being brought to bear ( mostly with stupid statements to the press). Regardless, the UCI doesn't have the same leeway. If they do nothing, they'd be saying that their drug testing has been a joke for years and they're OK with that. 

They can't do that, it would literally end the sport. They have to appeal and the CAS has no choice but to impose a penalty and likely one longer than had been originally proposed.


----------



## WAZCO (Sep 16, 2004)

Snpiperpilot said:


> They have to appeal and the CAS has no choice but to impose a penalty and likely one longer than had been originally proposed.


One would hope but CAS will involve Spanish committees too and will likely favor Contador side. At least that's the way I see it.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

WAZCO said:


> One would hope but CAS will involve Spanish committees too and will likely favor Contador side. At least that's the way I see it.


I think CAS has to perform in a more neutral fashion. If anything, they've been a bit harder than the local committee most of the time. I honestly think the politics of this got the better of the RFEC and that the other non governmental bodies will behave as the rules demand.

I'm willing to take Contador at his word ( for the purpose of the penalty, I still think he cheated ) and allow his explanation to be accepted to mitigate his penalty. But, the precedent for mitigation is not now nor has it ever been, no penalty at all. It was a reduced time which is what they previously proposed. Allowing him NO penalty isn't in the rules. Nor, is it in anyone's interest ( even the RFEC if they are honest) to do so. If they all allow this to happen, I believe the sport will be finished. Sponsors will disappear, TV revenue will disappear and without those, there is NO sport.


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

Snpiperpilot said:


> If their goal was to get the UCI off their backs, this is the wrong way to do it. They had 6 months before their first recommendation. They haven't heard anything new, they just bowed to the political pressure that was being brought to bear ( mostly with stupid statements to the press). Regardless, the UCI doesn't have the same leeway. If they do nothing, they'd be saying that their drug testing has been a joke for years and they're OK with that.
> 
> They can't do that, it would literally end the sport. They have to appeal and the CAS has no choice but to impose a penalty and likely one longer than had been originally proposed.



man, I hope you're right on this. is this becomes a huge fiasco and AC rides again I'll probably quit on procyling and encourage others too.

wonder if ASO will weigh in if the UCI wimps out? they've closed the door to unwanted riders in the Tour before...


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

I generally don't get involved in the doping discussions, but this saga had left me dumbfounded.

As I understand it. Contador's defence is: "I ate some tainted food. I can't prove it, as we don't have any of the alleged food, and nobody else who ate the food was tested". 

If this defence passes muster, then WADA is completely screwed. Game over. Finished.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

MattSoutherden said:


> I generally don't get involved in the doping discussions, but this saga had left me dumbfounded.
> 
> As I understand it. Contador's defence is: "I ate some tainted food. I can't prove it, as we don't have any of the alleged food, and nobody else who ate the food was tested".
> 
> If this defence passes muster, then WADA is completely screwed. Game over. Finished.


There is this table tennis player who has been let off, but WADA have decided not to sanction: Ovtcharov. For me, it looks like the strict liability part of the doping code has been eroded, which kind of makes sense - it is far too strict. It appears that Ovtcharov also hasn't shown the the Clenbuterol came from tainted food, but that it is likey.

To be honest, this is a very small trace of Clenbuterol which could have got in to his blood entirely through bad luck (I don't necessarily mean through a transfusion). If they let Contador go, then they need to do the same for some of the other Clenbuterol positives.


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

Latest from El Pais: " España exculpa a Contador" (Spain Exculpates Contador): http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/Espana/exculpa/Contador/elpepidep/20110215elpepidep_2/Tes

It goes on to say that none of the parties, Contador, Saxo Bank, UCI, WADA, have commented because they have not received the official notice of exoneration.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Congratulations to 'Roid Landis, the winner of the 2006 TDF!

I mean, why bother?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

*It's official...*

From Velonews - It's official, Contador has been cleared by the Spanish Federation.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> From Velonews - It's official, Contador has been cleared by the Spanish Federation.


Dozens shocked! F Spain.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

This is stunning. Black Tuesday. A terrible day for integrity in pro cycling. Very very sad. A cheater is off the hook by some absolutely ludicrous explanation ("I ate bad beef"), whereas another an ocean away is viewed as a villain and despised.

I hope Landis gets on the soap box on this issue.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 3, 2006)

PhatTalc said:


> There is this table tennis player who has been let off, but WADA have decided not to sanction: Ovtcharov. For me, it looks like the strict liability part of the doping code has been eroded, which kind of makes sense - it is far too strict. It appears that Ovtcharov also hasn't shown the the Clenbuterol came from tainted food, but that it is likey.
> 
> To be honest, this is a very small trace of Clenbuterol which could have got in to his blood entirely through bad luck (I don't necessarily mean through a transfusion). If they let Contador go, then they need to do the same for some of the other Clenbuterol positives.


Ovtcharov and his teammates volunteered hair samples to provide evidence of eating tainted food and to show that there was no history of clenbuterol use. I don't believe Contador ever volunteered a hair sample, nor did his teammates.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

raptor3x said:


> Ovtcharov and his teammates volunteered hair samples to provide evidence of eating tainted food and to show that there was no history of clenbuterol use. I don't believe Contador ever volunteered a hair sample, nor did his teammates.


That's true. But in Contador's case, he was tested on one day, then the clenbuterol turns up and decays as you'd expect. The point being that the dose is so small that it couldn't have come from deliberate clenbuterol doping. So, transfusion aside (that hasn't been mentioned apart from rumours) the question is how did it get there? In the other clenbuterol positives, detecting such a small amount could indicate the last traces of the drug after it has been cleared from the body (hence the need for a hair sample), but in the Contador case this is not so.
So now, WADA/UCI have to show that a transfusion has taken place, since it seems entirely reasonable that Ovtcharo's case is pertinent.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

PhatTalc said:


> So now, WADA/UCI have to show that a transfusion has taken place, since it seems entirely reasonable that Ovtcharo's case is pertinent.


No, THEY DO NOT. Contador has to show that he ate the bad beef and that it was the only possible way for it to happen. You start guilty and have to prove innocence according to the rules allowing for lenience. The really stupid part is that they have made an error of fact. If the press release is right, they didn't say they accepted his mitigation, they said it never happened. By dropping the case, they are not mitigation the penalty they say there was no case to start with. That's untenable and has to be overturned. 

In any case, AC proved nothing. The RFEC just decided to do nothing and ignore the positive result. Since AC can't prove his theory, I can't see any way that the UCI and by extension the CAS have any choice.

My hope is that he's dumb enough to start the race tomorrow and reset the clock and that in addition, he will completely blow up as Karma demands.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Snpiperpilot said:


> No, THEY DO NOT. Contador has to show that he ate the bad beef and that it was the only possible way for it to happen. You start guilty and have to prove innocence according to the rules allowing for lenience. The really stupid part is that they have made an error of fact. If the press release is right, they didn't say they accepted his mitigation, they said it never happened. By dropping the case, they are not mitigation the penalty they say there was no case to start with. That's untenable and has to be overturned.
> 
> In any case, AC proved nothing. The RFEC just decided to do nothing and ignore the positive result. Since AC can't prove his theory, I can't see any way that the UCI and by extension the CAS have any choice.


I believe the case of Ovtcharov shows that it is not as cut and dry as you assume. AC doesn't have to prove it was tainted meat, just as Ovtcharov did not prove it. Putting bluntly, Contador has a good case for avoiding sanction, unless it turns out he blood doped in which case he is doomed.


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

gnauss said:


> I actually brought this up on a thread on Velonews once after the Valverde fiasco. If Spain won't punish its riders for doping then Spanish riders can't race. Simple.
> 
> I have more respect for the pile of dog crap I stepped in this morning than I do for the Spanish Cycling Federation and Contadork.


you're a john belushi fan?


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

spade2you said:


> That's fine and dandy, but what about Armstrong's (abuse of) hydrocortisone for a saddle sore? Seems we're more wheelin' ad dealin' when it's not a dirty Spaniard. If this is the standard, we need to hold EVERYONE to it.



I agree with you that everyone needs to be held to the same standard but I feel that it is the other way around a lot of the time  

Armstrong is a special case; a guy with more money than most pro cyclists have and the ability (like Contador) to win GT after GT after GT after GT and so forth, thus gaining more power. 

Look at the Valverde case. It was an absolute complete farce. I'm not defending Floyd but he is an example of an American GT winner with a little less money and a little less power who was absolutely crucified, dishonored, and ruined after his positive and not for being any more of a douchebag than Contador has been. 

I don't think anyone here is giving any more leniency in opinion to cyclists who aren't Spanish but I think that authorities are doing so with some athletes (of which many are Spanish).


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

thechriswebb said:


> I agree with you that everyone needs to be held to the same standard but I feel that it is the other way around a lot of the time
> 
> Armstrong is a special case; a guy with more money than most pro cyclists have and the ability (like Contador) to win GT after GT after GT after GT and so forth, thus gaining more power.


You have to be careful about the chicken and egg issue. LA grew up poor and made his money racing. His big payday was the insurance policy that gave him 5 (or was it 10) million if he won the 5th Tour. That could just have easily gone the other way. Also, I assume he invested well. Not clear how the interaction with Livestrong affects all that but as their primary spokesman, I assume the pick up a lot of payments which seems fair. Frankly, It's just as well that he's out of the fray now and can continue to do the work that keeps me wearing up ugly yellow jelly bracelet on my right arm. ( roadid on left)


----------

