# Contador v Schleck TdF 2011?



## tosa (Aug 23, 2010)

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/news/report-contador-to-be-cleared-on-doping-charges_159881


----------



## makeitso (Sep 20, 2008)

I don't know much about who's got the authority to repeal Contador's positive tests but seems to be the Spanish Cycling Federation has no authority on a UCI event held in France. Not sure how they can leverage the UCI and the French cycling authority.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Seems like total BS to me. They're unhappy their star rider got busted so they alter the rulings to suit their needs.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

What does ASO say?


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Spain didn't want to ban Valverde, they sure don't want to ban Contador. WADA will want to bring this to CAS, the UCI wont but will have to so they appear to want to fight doping... This ain't over.


----------



## Magsdad (Jun 29, 2005)

*Wow.*

Did anyone read the responses below? What a train wreck.


----------



## rward325 (Sep 22, 2008)

Exactly, it is still up to to UCI and WADA to appeal this. I don't see them sitting on their hands and letting this slide. There have already been bans for the same amount of clenbuterol that was found in his test.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

rward325 said:


> Exactly, it is still up to to UCI and WADA to appeal this. I don't see them sitting on their hands and letting this slide. There have already been bans for the same amount of clenbuterol that was found in his test.


there has also been the case of the German table tennis federation exonerating a player found with a similar amount of clenbuterol in a test; WADA have decided not to appeal the verdict. The case is in most respects similar, so it might be that contador gets a pass on this one. I think WADA will let it slide.


----------



## ronbo613 (Jan 19, 2009)

Even though many people believe riders like Lance Armstrong used PEDs, he never tested positive, I feel you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Contador tested positive for a banned substance, had no tangible evidence to the contrary, other riders testing positive for the same substance have been sanctioned, but Alberto goes free.
If Contador walks, pro cycling has lost all credibility. Contador vs. Schleck? Doper vs. Clean? If Contador is doped and Schleck beats him, is he on dope, too? Or does the Contador situation show that pro cycling is not as serious as they say they are about doping and the average cycling fan now knows once and for all the dopers are riding in the pro peleton every single race.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Apparently WADA has appealed.. Just up to the UCI now. Total BS.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

ronbo613 said:


> Even though many people believe riders like Lance Armstrong used PEDs, he never tested positive, I feel you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
> Contador tested positive for a banned substance, had no tangible evidence to the contrary, other riders testing positive for the same substance have been sanctioned, but Alberto goes free.
> If Contador walks, pro cycling has lost all credibility. Contador vs. Schleck? Doper vs. Clean? If Contador is doped and Schleck beats him, is he on dope, too? Or does the Contador situation show that pro cycling is not as serious as they say they are about doping and the average cycling fan now knows once and for all the dopers are riding in the pro peleton every single race.


Schleck is clean you think? Didn't he pay a few Thousand Euros to one Dr Fuentes a while back?


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

ronbo613 said:


> Even though many people believe riders like Lance Armstrong used PEDs, he never tested positive, I feel you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
> Contador tested positive for a banned substance, had no tangible evidence to the contrary, other riders testing positive for the same substance have been sanctioned, but Alberto goes free.
> If Contador walks, pro cycling has lost all credibility. Contador vs. Schleck? Doper vs. Clean? If Contador is doped and Schleck beats him, is he on dope, too? Or does the Contador situation show that pro cycling is not as serious as they say they are about doping and the average cycling fan now knows once and for all the dopers are riding in the pro peleton every single race.


There are reasons why Contador's case might be different. Most importantly, the tiny amount of clenbuterol shows up after a clean drug test. The amount shown is so small that it can't have been a deliberate act of drug taking. In other cases, even where the same amount has been found, it is often not possible to show a clean test from the day before, so the accused can't say e.g. contaminated meat caused it. In that case the rider has to prove he dind't take anything. In Contador's case it certainly looks like an accident - and if that accident was a transfusion, then surely that needs to be proved?


----------



## yurl (Mar 31, 2010)

wow thats unbelievable. at a time when pro cycling is struggling for credibility, we've all been fingerbanged.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Looking forward to an epic duel!


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Dan Gerous said:


> Schleck is clean you think? Didn't he pay a few Thousand Euros to one Dr Fuentes a while back?


That was Frank Schleck, not Andy.


----------



## ronbo613 (Jan 19, 2009)

> There are reasons why Contador's case might be different. Most importantly, the tiny amount of clenbuterol shows up after a clean drug test. The amount shown is so small that it can't have been a deliberate act of drug taking. In other cases, even where the same amount has been found, it is often not possible to show a clean test from the day before, so the accused can't say e.g. contaminated meat caused it. In that case the rider has to prove he dind't take anything. In Contador's case it certainly looks like an accident - and if that accident was a transfusion, then surely that needs to be proved?


The bottom line is that levels are set for the amount of drugs in a cyclist's system, the legal limit for clenbuterol is zero, Contador exceeded that, he was in violation of the rules. If they let him off, what about the other athletes who got sanctioned for "clen" with similar explanations of innocence? No matter what the rules are, they should be the same for everybody. 
Some riders that have unknowingly ingested illegal substances("nutritional supplements") can come up with the product and have it analyzed to help plead their case, not so with Contador. Contaminated meat? In this top tier pro cycling team with one of cycling's "top" riders, who is doing the shopping? Go back to the butcher shop or cattle ranch and get another chunk of contaminated meat. Odds are, if a rancher is giving drugs to his cattle, it's not just one cow. 
As far as the amount of clenbuterol; maybe Contador took it earlier in the year, when his medical advisors figured it had cleared his system, he took out a bag-o-blood for use at a later date. Maybe his medical advisor's detection gear wasn't sophisticated enough and they "missed it by that much". 
Hard to prove someone has had a blood transfusion unless you are able to accurately keep track of the number of a person's blood cells, what the Biological Passport attempts to do. Maybe a test for those "plasticsizers" will be useful.
At this stage of the game, I don't think you can trust anybody; riders, team management, WDA, UCI, who knows what the real truth is?


----------



## Jett (Mar 21, 2004)

PhatTalc said:


> There are reasons why Contador's case might be different. Most importantly, the tiny amount of clenbuterol shows up after a clean drug test. The amount shown is so small that it can't have been a deliberate act of drug taking. In other cases, even where the same amount has been found, it is often not possible to show a clean test from the day before, so the accused can't say e.g. contaminated meat caused it. In that case the rider has to prove he dind't take anything. In Contador's case it certainly looks like an accident - and if that accident was a transfusion, then surely that needs to be proved?



How about the di-phthalate plasticizers in his system? I would love to hear Contador explication for that. Left over traces from the blood bags that the meat was transported in? 

He’s dirty!!!


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

ronbo613 said:


> The bottom line is that levels are set for the amount of drugs in a cyclist's system, the legal limit for clenbuterol is zero, Contador exceeded that, he was in violation of the rules. If they let him off, what about the other athletes who got sanctioned for "clen" with similar explanations of innocence? No matter what the rules are, they should be the same for everybody.
> Some riders that have unknowingly ingested illegal substances("nutritional supplements") can come up with the product and have it analyzed to help plead their case, not so with Contador. Contaminated meat? In this top tier pro cycling team with one of cycling's "top" riders, who is doing the shopping? Go back to the butcher shop or cattle ranch and get another chunk of contaminated meat. Odds are, if a rancher is giving drugs to his cattle, it's not just one cow.
> As far as the amount of clenbuterol; maybe Contador took it earlier in the year, when his medical advisors figured it had cleared his system, he took out a bag-o-blood for use at a later date. Maybe his medical advisor's detection gear wasn't sophisticated enough and they "missed it by that much".
> Hard to prove someone has had a blood transfusion unless you are able to accurately keep track of the number of a person's blood cells, what the Biological Passport attempts to do. Maybe a test for those "plasticsizers" will be useful.
> At this stage of the game, I don't think you can trust anybody; riders, team management, WDA, UCI, who knows what the real truth is?


That's apparently not the bottom line though, is it? If it were this case would be open and shut. Closed, finished 2 yr ban and away you go. But this, and the recent Ovtcharov case show there is some room to move. I agree, if those plasticisers are present he is screwed, until then this result is probably the right one.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Jett said:


> How about the di-phthalate plasticizers in his system? I would love to hear Contador explication for that. Left over traces from the blood bags that the meat was transported in?
> 
> He’s dirty!!!


If it comes to that, he'll be screwed. Until then, he is free to race. The UCI have said they will look at the case - but I wouldn't expect them to do anything. WADA might, but unless this plastisiser stuff turns out to be true, he'll probably get off.


----------



## peter.hardie (May 31, 2006)

PhatTalc said:


> If it comes to that, he'll be screwed. Until then, he is free to race. The UCI have said they will look at the case - but I wouldn't expect them to do anything. WADA might, but unless this plastisiser stuff turns out to be true, he'll probably get off.


It doesn't matter if the plastisiser test turned out positive. The test has not been accepted by WADA yet. You can't use an unapproved test to sanction someone. You also apparently can't use an approved one either, i.e. Clen.


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

They should probably just let them ride motorcycles from now on.


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

yurl said:


> wow thats unbelievable. at a time when pro cycling is struggling for credibility, we've all been fingerbanged.


I like that


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this situation, IF Schleck and Contador go face to face in this year's TdF, Contador will simply blow Schleck away - no question.


----------



## StillKeen (Oct 4, 2005)

albert owen said:


> Whatever the rights and wrongs of this situation, IF Schleck and Contador go face to face in this year's TdF, Contador will simply blow Schleck away - no question.


Agreed. Schleck never looked strong enough in 2010, and now Contador know's he's untouchable in the courts too ... why not dope more this year and just say you still like steak?

I read somewhere that if he took the 12mth ban, it would be from Aug 2010 until Aug 2011. So if he races in the Algrave this year, then get's his 12mth ban re-handed to him by WADA, does that mean he'll be banned say April 2011 until April 2013? That'd be fantastic. He could have missed TdF 2011 and still done Vuelta, but maybe now he'd have to miss both ... 

I have zero faith that pro-cycling will be clean ... they've been on stuff for 50 years ... and now its such big business that I can't see them banning any stars.


----------



## tranzformer (Dec 27, 2007)

PhatTalc said:


> there has also been the case of the German table tennis federation exonerating a player found with a similar amount of clenbuterol in a test; WADA have decided not to appeal the verdict. The case is in most respects similar, so it might be that contador gets a pass on this one. I think WADA will let it slide.


In that case, Ovtcharov, was able to provide hair samples from the other teamates showing clen levels in them as well. So unless they were all doping, his particular case was probably contamination. AC's team never provided evidence for their story, besides the made up story itself.


----------



## Wicked2006 (Jul 9, 2005)

My heart says Andy. But my mind says Alberto. He'll make good run for the TDF come July! It's gonna be a great TDF. 

At least Alberto will be able to keep his TDF title. This is gonna be a fun season.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

tranzformer said:


> In that case, Ovtcharov, was able to provide hair samples from the other teamates showing clen levels in them as well. So unless they were all doping, his particular case was probably contamination.


In the Contador case, the tiny amount of Clenbuterol showed up the day after a clear test, so Contador does not have to show a hair sample, or one for his teammates. It is clear he didn't take a dose of Clenbuterol in order to get a performance enhancing effect (no one is claiming he did). The only other possibility anybody is talking about is a transfusion - but considering that Ovtcharov hasn't had to face this claim why should AC? Put it this way: if you ignore the possibility of a transfusion, is this case consistent with doping or a supplement, or tainted meat?



tranzformer said:


> AC's team never provided evidence for their story, besides the made up story itself.


The evidence is simply that a tiny amount shows up suddenly - this could be considered characteristic of eating tainted meat.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Yes, this seems like..."Just Kidding" when bike racing says it wants to eliminate doping, to clean itself up.

Winner of the biggest race all year violates the doping rules...and gets a pardon anyhow? Guys in amateur racing talking openly about getting "topped-up" for big races? 60yr olds with legs like Cancillara and bodies like a track racer, yet climbing like Landis on HIS big day? What a joke....

Bike racing? No such thing, it seems. It's become the battle of the syringes...the contest of the cash, may the client (excuse me...Racer) with the best doping program win.

Who's doing Schlecks doping?...How does he (the dope doctor) compare with Contador's? That is a better question.

yech!


----------



## kingfisher (Mar 6, 2009)

*Too Bad for Contador*

Too bad for Contador. 99% of the cycling world thinks he should have been banned, and at least seemed willing to accept the 1 year ban (instead of 2) on account of the countervailing circumstances others have described above. Who wants to race in such an environment?

Now, his 2010 "win" will come with an asterik, and any wins for 2011 will come with an asterik also (i.e., the year he shouldn't have been racing). Moreover, this outcome, if left standing, will cast a shadow throughout his career: unrepentant doper; rich cyclist who bent the rules, etc. etc. 

Personally, I think the guy is really wierd (pinching Schleck's cheek? it was troubling that Schleck let him do it w/o slapping him away, but more disturbing that it even occured to Contador as an appropriate thing to do--there are many other examples of his wierdness), but I was almost starting to respect him for his racing abilities. Now I feel like he's getting away with something that others who I like alot more than Contador (e.g., Zirbel) could not get away with, and I don't like that, and it's not easy to swallow. 

Contrast someone like Basso. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks so, but he paid his dues (even w/o admitting to wrong doping). Now, I find I'm actually rooting for him to do well in the Tour. He seems like a real classy rider, a hard worker and a team player. I'm willing to let bygones by bygones.

But with a case like Contador, I think it will be harder to let "bygones" be gone b/c it feels so blatantly unresolved.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Schadenfreude


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

its simple really, schlock needs to bulk up with some spanish meat!


----------



## lemonlime (Sep 24, 2003)

StillKeen said:


> I have zero faith that pro-cycling will be clean ... they've been on stuff *forever* ... and now its such big business that I can't see them banning any stars.


FIFY.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

rubbersoul said:


> Schadenfreude


I dislike Contador intensely and did long before his success. He's a hothead and not trustworthy. I had schadenfreude before but now I'm just disgusted and sad cause this doesn't hurt him at all and it hurts a sport I love.


----------



## tranzformer (Dec 27, 2007)

PhatTalc said:


> In the Contador case, the tiny amount of Clenbuterol showed up the day after a clear test, so Contador does not have to show a hair sample, or one for his teammates. It is clear he didn't take a dose of Clenbuterol in order to get a performance enhancing effect (no one is claiming he did). The only other possibility anybody is talking about is a transfusion - but considering that Ovtcharov hasn't had to face this claim why should AC? Put it this way: if you ignore the possibility of a transfusion, is this case consistent with doping or a supplement, or tainted meat?
> 
> 
> The evidence is simply that a tiny amount shows up suddenly - this could be considered characteristic of eating tainted meat.


You are incorrect in comparing this two cases. As this is not the doping forum, we shouldn't bring it up except for the fact that Ovtcharov and AC's cases are different. If you want to discuss that open a thread in the doping forum.


----------



## nayr497 (Nov 8, 2008)

Okay, read the thread and various articles. Can someone sum up what is going to happen?

Spanish Cycling Fed has cleared him. He can race at Algarve. He gets no suspension? He keeps his 2010 TdF crown?

I thought the UCI was the bigger body and had more say. Does the Spanish Fed have more power? Why does UCI or WADA have to appeal. Seems like the Spanish would obviously want to clear one of their own riders, but I thought the UCI outranked them and had final say.

I'm a bit confused here.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

kingfisher said:


> Contrast someone like Basso. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks so, but he paid his dues (even w/o admitting to wrong doping). Now, I find I'm actually rooting for him to do well in the Tour. He seems like a real classy rider, a hard worker and a team player. I'm willing to let bygones by bygones.


I think the opinion of cycling fans on Basso is split. Personally I can't forgive him for all the trash-talking during and after the 2006 Giro d'Italia. Given that his previous year's best was 28th, during a race that at the time was his target race, this strongly suggest that he must have done something "special" for the 2006 edition. Yet, he's allowed to keep his win. His excuse of "I only *thought* about doping, I hadn't actually done it" is incredulous in my opinion. FCI and CONI were waaaay lenient on their star, being uncooperative and disruptive in the Puerto investigation. 

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/oct06/oct27news4 

Only later did they re-open the investigation, probably in the face of mounting pressure and imminent presentation of evidence. It took until May 2007 for him to fess up. 

And during that time Basso had the balls to sign up for Disco. 

So I didn't want to derail this thread, but the way things are going with Contador, I hear echoes of Basso. Maybe somebody within the Spanish anti-doping authority will have the balls to re-open the Contador case.


----------



## otiebob (Jun 25, 2002)

orange_julius said:


> I think the opinion of cycling fans on Basso is split. Personally I can't forgive him for all the trash-talking during and after the 2006 Giro d'Italia. Given that his previous year's best was 28th, during a race that at the time was his target race, this strongly suggest that he must have done something "special" for the 2006 edition. Yet, he's allowed to keep his win. His excuse of "I only *thought* about doping, I hadn't actually done it" is incredulous in my opinion. FCI and CONI were waaaay lenient on their star, being uncooperative and disruptive in the Puerto investigation.
> 
> http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/oct06/oct27news4


Absolutely agree. Between Basso and "The Buffalo," Simoni was absolutely robbed of the victory that year. It was patently obvious that Basso was doped to the gills to the point of being an "extraterrestrial" that year. Look at his sister, his brother-in-law, etc. The guy was firmly embedded in doping culture. Moreover, his Puerto defense (ie. "I tried pot but didn't inhale") is a joke. The only good thing he has done since coming back publicity-wise is to stfu. People like him now because he keeps his mouth shut, acts humble, and occasionally has "off" days. I'll never understand how this guy is any better than villains like Valverde. Birds of a feather...


----------



## tranzformer (Dec 27, 2007)

nayr497 said:


> Okay, read the thread and various articles. Can someone sum up what is going to happen?
> 
> Spanish Cycling Fed has cleared him. He can race at Algarve. He gets no suspension? He keeps his 2010 TdF crown?
> 
> ...


Doping suspension needs to start in the riders national federation. In this case RFEC (Spain). If the UCI/WADA is not satisfied with the outcome they can then appeal the case to CAS. CAS is the final stop for issues like this in sports. UCI/WADA now have 30 days after they get the report from RFEC on why they allowed Contador to walk.


----------



## nayr497 (Nov 8, 2008)

^Thanks for that explanation. I appreciate it.


----------



## nayr497 (Nov 8, 2008)

otiebob said:


> Absolutely agree. Between Basso and "The Buffalo," Simoni was absolutely robbed of the victory that year. It was patently obvious that Basso was doped to the gills to the point of being an "extraterrestrial" that year. Look at his sister, his brother-in-law, etc. The guy was firmly embedded in doping culture. Moreover, his Puerto defense (ie. "I tried pot but didn't inhale") is a joke. The only good thing he has done since coming back publicity-wise is to stfu. People like him now because he keeps his mouth shut, acts humble, and occasionally has "off" days. I'll never understand how this guy is any better than villains like Valverde. Birds of a feather...


Can you elaborate on his sister/brother-in-law? I'm not challenging you, I just really have no idea what you are talking about.

As for a forgiven doper, yeah, it is weird how some/we/others can forgive one rider but not forgive another.

And what the heck is going on with Ricco at the moment?


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

Andy and Frank have a secret weapon this year, their long lost brother. The 3 of them will tag team Contador and emerge victorious


----------

