# Contador cleared!



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/confirmed-alberto-contador-cleared-of-clenbuterol-charges

Go ahead and eat anything you want with any banned substance!  

What a Fricking CROCK!!!

Cycling has lost all credibility, or what little it did have left!


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/confirmed-alberto-contador-cleared-of-clenbuterol-charges
> 
> Go ahead and eat anything you want with any banned substance!
> 
> ...


I guess I need to go find some EPO/HGH tainted beef...it's all the rage!!! :mad2:


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

I just cancelled my USAC racing license -- putting an order in for a racing license in Spain.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Looking forward to a great Tour. Another epic duel!


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

il sogno said:


> Looking forward to a great Tour. Another epic duel!


Don't worry, if it gets appealed and Conti can't race we can ummm... we'll just install a small motor on Cadel's bike. That's right. That way you can still see some cool epic battles. And uhhh... ooo ooo, get this. We're going to completely stage one of the climbs this year too. It'll all be scripted with a pre-determined, yet *exciting*, outcome! It's going to be quite the show! Oh and this year all riders are required to register with a stage name, like "The Crusher" or "Big Gear Daddy" and before each stage we play their heavy metal song as choice as they grab the mic and talk trash to other riders. The drama is going to be unreal! Reserve your tickets! ... That's right, it's all indoors with air conditioning! Stick around inbetween stages for Monster Truck Madness! Call now! Order tickets before March 15th and get a coupon for a free large soda with any purchase of an extra large tub of popcorn!


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

F Contador
F Saxobank Sunguard (and Riis)
F Spain
And I hope the Vuelta takes an even bigger dive in relevancy this year. I didn't watch last year and I sure as hell can do it again this year.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Again*

He is Spanish

He can win GT's

That is all


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2011)

*Contador screwed up*

Where he went wrong was not going to Radio Shack. Stay with Lance and you'll never test positive. Heras left and tested positive. Hamilton left and tested positive. Landis left and tested positive. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few. Moral of the story? Stay with the team which has the best doctors and you won't have to go throught this?


----------



## Rhymenocerus (Jul 17, 2010)

Oh man, this stinks to high heaven. UCI has lost all credibility, its not about racing, its about money and image.


----------



## tconrady (May 1, 2007)

When did the WWE become the parent organization of the UCI and the Spanish Cycling Federation?


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

UCI now saying it will take up to 30 days to study the Spaniards' decision before deciding whether to take this to CAS. WRONG. UCI should have sent a clear message that it was appealing this immediately. There is nothing to study. There was a test. Contador flunked it. He should have received a suspension like everyone else. UCI needs to be a leader here and show that they mean business.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The Spanish Cycling Federation...priceless.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Rhymenocerus said:


> Oh man, this stinks to high heaven. UCI has lost all credibility, its not about racing, its about money and image.


Not UCI, yet. This was RFEC, the Spanish Cycling Federation.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

mohair_chair said:


> The Spanish Cycling Federation...priceless.


 It does smell a whole lot like fine home cooking, that's for sure, but they (the Spanish cycling fed) know the eyes of the world are on them, so I don't think they'd have done it without being able to defend it pretty vigorously. Of course this could just mean that they are comfortable they've found an iron-clad loophole in Article 296.

What I don't get -- never have gotten -- is how the case ever got to this point in the first place. As I understood the news stories, the amount of clen found in AC's sample was 1/40th, or 2.5% of, the amount the rule specifies as a positive. Am I correct on that? And if I am, then what really constitutes a positive? The amount the rule states, or something less than that amount?


----------



## Kai Winters (Aug 23, 2009)

This just in:
Spanish Cycle Sport Authorities are left spent, sleepy and craving a smoke...


----------



## gobes (Sep 12, 2006)

Allez Rouge said:


> What I don't get -- never have gotten -- is how the case ever got to this point in the first place. As I understood the news stories, the amount of clen found in AC's sample was 1/40th, or 2.5% of, the amount the rule specifies as a positive. Am I correct on that? And if I am, then what really constitutes a positive? The amount the rule states, or something less than that amount?


The rule specifies that _any_ amount is a positive.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

gobes said:


> The rule specifies that _any_ amount is a positive.


That's not what this seems to say:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-contaminated-food-excuse-or-possibility

Penultimate paragraph: "However, the UCI's statement issued early Thursday, which made public the level of the drug (50 picograms/millilitre, or 40 times less than the required limit of detection) indicates that the contaminated supplement defense may have some weight to it."


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Allez Rouge said:


> That's not what this seems to say:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-contaminated-food-excuse-or-possibility
> 
> Penultimate paragraph: "However, the UCI's statement issued early Thursday, which made public the level of the drug (50 picograms/millilitre, or 40 times less than the required limit of detection) indicates that the contaminated supplement defense may have some weight to it."


The required limit of detection is what the lab must detect in order to be qualified at performing the test. They are apparently able to detect a much smaller amount. The question is, does this small amount indicate incidental ingestion, on which basis Contador could create a legitimate defense. To be clear, I'm not saying that such a case has been made, but that it could hypothetically be made, as it was with Ovtcharov.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Allez Rouge said:


> That's not what this seems to say:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-contaminated-food-excuse-or-possibility
> 
> Penultimate paragraph: "However, the UCI's statement issued early Thursday, which made public the level of the drug (50 picograms/millilitre, or 40 times less than the required limit of detection) indicates that the contaminated supplement defense may have some weight to it."


The WADA Prohibited List identifies clenbuterol in section 2, but does stipulate a mininum level requred to mandate a positive reading.

The WADA Mimimum Required Performance Levels defines the the minimum level which a lab must be able to detect. A certified lab must be able to detect clenbuterol down to 2ng/ml, or 40 times greater than that detected in El Pistolero. The lab that busted him was said to be using a new test procedure capable of detection of very minute levels of clebuterol. Which brings me to this paragraph fromn the MRPL:


"The MRPL is an analytical parameter of technical performance with which the
Laboratories shall comply when testing for the presence of a particular 
​

Prohibited Substance, its Metabolite(s) or Marker(s). The MRPL is not a threshold, nor is it alimit of detection (LOD) or a limit of quantification (LOQ). Adverse Analytical​Findings may result from concentrations below the MRPL listed in the table."

JSR
BT3K


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

Allez Rouge said:


> That's not what this seems to say:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-contaminated-food-excuse-or-possibility
> 
> Penultimate paragraph: "However, the UCI's statement issued early Thursday, which made public the level of the drug (50 picograms/millilitre, or 40 times less than the required limit of detection) indicates that the contaminated supplement defense may have some weight to it."


This might all be reason for doubt if it wasn't for:
A - specific request to bring a steak from Spain (I always ask my cousin to bring Hebrew National hot dogs from PA to our NY bar-b-que because the NY Hebrew National hotdogs just aren't the same)
B - eaten on rest day when by AC's own admission he doesn't normally eat meat on rest day
C - conveniently the only other team member tested that day (Vino) did not eat the same meat
D - no positive tests for Clen in Spainish cattle, a couple in more than 80K+ tests in all of Europe
E - AC hits the lotto jackpot and gets that one piece of Spanish beef (that would've tested for Clen) on that one day 
F - his own family butcher says the cow would to be mega overdosed on clen to show up in the human system

What are the odds that all the pieces of the puzzle work against him for that once instance?


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/confirmed-alberto-contador-cleared-of-clenbuterol-charges
> 
> Go ahead and eat anything you want with any banned substance!
> 
> ...


Fingerbang rides again!


----------



## JohnHenry (Aug 9, 2006)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> Fingerbang rides again!


I bet the "shifty schleck" fans are p*ssed!


----------



## Rhymenocerus (Jul 17, 2010)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Not UCI, yet. This was RFEC, the Spanish Cycling Federation.


Saw that after I posted of course. Still pretty lame.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

This is a defining moment for the sport.

Lets see what happens.

AC is clearly guilty. Spain clearly doesnt care. It just wants fingerbang to continue to win GT after GT because it believes that is the greater good.

I hope UCI bans all Spanish riders from international competition until their country will enforce the same rules others ride under. Is Spain allowing motors in their bikes of their riders too? Are they allowed to ride on 8 lb bikes? Why not put some implants on AC and have him race against chicks as well?

What a farce. I hope Saxo gives the doper the boot. Someone out there has to have some balls.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

Rhymenocerus said:


> Saw that after I posted of course. Still pretty lame.


Agreed. Bike racing is gonna suck this year. They'll have to talk about this every single time.


----------



## anq (Jan 9, 2011)

Yes Schleck vs Contador! Dope vs Dope!

Though UCI is going to smack this down.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

^^I hope so! UCI has the opportunity to make this right. Would love to see a 2year ban when they probably would have let 1yr slide by. 

Interesting if AC races tomorrow, does that reset the clock should UCI overturn it?

Go UCI Go!


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

No problem, all schlock needs to do is divert some of the electricity from his Di2 battery to the motor..Cancellara can help!


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Cycle Racing has always been rotten; most other endurance/speed sports are rotten as well. This isn't the first or worst scandal to hit sport and it won't be the last.

My solution:
When a rider is caught AND convicted, he should get a lifetime ban. The Team Manager should get a lifetime ban and the team should get relegated from Pro Tour for a period of 5 years and fined $1 million +.
Road Cycling should be thrown out of the Olympics until it puts in place these draconian measures.

This won't happen, of course, so just enjoy the races and never believe what you see AND keep your kids away from the sport.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

I'm sure that UCI will appeal. Then this will come down to WADA's policies on strict liability and how they are interpreted by the CAS tribunal. I think these WADA policies are largely consistent with the UCI 296 rule that was quoted. Specifically:



> If the sample came from an in-competition test, then the results of the athlete for that competition are automatically invalidated. This rule helps to establish fairness for the other athletes in the competition.
> 
> As relates to subsequent sanctions (Art. 10 of the Code), the athlete has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if he or she can establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal how the substance entered his or her system, demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance. This means that the burden of proof is on the athlete.
> 
> The strict liability principle set forth in the Code has been consistently upheld in the decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Swiss Federal Court.


So Contador's 2010 TdF victory will be taken away from him. The rest will be a tribunal judgement call as to whether his legal team have enough evidence to meet the required burden of proof. The wording allows him to get away based on grounds of no fault, no significant fault, and/or no intention to improve performance. So basically CAS have enough lee way to judge this either way, and to impose whatever penalty they like from none up to 2 years. This is going to run for a while, and it will come down to whether CAS will bend over and acquiesce, or whether they want to hang Contador out to dry as a doper. I'm guessing the former - he will be disqualified from the 2010 TdF making Schleck the winner, but no other penalty and all other race results will stand.


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

tconrady said:


> When did the WWE become the parent organization of the UCI and the Spanish Cycling Federation?


I'm not so sure I would lower the WWE's staus to that of the UCI and SCF


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

This actually reminds me (not quite as bad) of when OJ was acquitted.


----------



## lastchild (Jul 4, 2009)

The Weasel said:


> And I hope the Vuelta takes an even bigger dive in relevancy this year. I didn't watch last year and I sure as hell can do it again this year.



That's too bad cuz the racing was awesome...I'm sure Spain trembles at the thought of you not watching.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

lance too will ride off into the sunset


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

*fraud in spanish??*

Contador is just the latest example of the cheater cyclist..now with the aid of his country. This guy was found positive I believe four times that week. there is no way a steak from Spain was the problem, who would drive a steak from Spain to France?? Is Spanish food really superior to French??LOL I read yesterday in an old magazine some parameters of his climbing expressed in meters per hour altitude gain. he was off the map from his previous year almost 25% gain. BS I say. This guys numbers were better than the next five (all dopers) Like Lance who I am a fan of; it is suspicious that all around doped but the fastest guy did not. Can they fcuk up cycling any more... it is time to either allow all things in any amount or life time ban at the slightest infraction and director too.The last clean winner of the tour was probably LEMOND hard to fathom. Contador was seeing a gynecologist, Lance saw the Italian Dr. Ferrera (drug guru) but did not inhale. Rasmussen another cheat. prior winners the Cocaine Cowboy (Pantani) Landis ( I drank jack daniels!!) 
The pattern all the same Riis another one.. tour winner DS and cheat .

Stop this crap,,, sponsors will desert....Only clean top rider is the world champ Hushvold I think maybe he will be found snorting norwegian raindeer antler dust.
Rant over


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Call me naive, but I was holding faith in his innocence, and quite frankly it could be a one-sided Tour without him. 

Just don't get me wrong, I do hate corruption in the sport, especially when it's costing other athletes who kill themselves to stay clean and competitive from their ranks. With this case, I can't see AC as a total or sure-fire corrupt athlete. If he ever comes out admitting he's guilty, expect me to have a huge level of disrespect for him - more than I would if I just assumed he was guilty in the first place. I see it that he's basically risking putting himself under a bigger knife by asking people to trust him.

There was a whole lot of extrapolation on considerably small amounts of evidence, even if in their well-being held a point against Contador (as there's something that bottom-line shouldn't in his system). AC hasn't done anything astronomically bizarre performance-wise. Maybe that TT at Annecy in the 2009 TDF...but we just don't know.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

He was either innocent or we just didn't have enough to hold him. I have a feeling he'll be watched like a hawk in the next TdF, so we shall see how he rides.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

What. The. Fu**. That is all.


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

Meh,,, WTF, WWE, WWUCI, etc, etc,etc.... What a joke.. The rules are the rules and this tastes of rancid meat. The one year was a gift and a "it may have been accidental" ruling. Do your one year and rise again without much fuss. Now the Spaniards look bad, the UCI will have to flex, and the long list of doper's that actually received a ban should fetch their torches and pitchforks. 
As a fan, this sucks. As a rider, this sucks.. However, at least wrestling fans are used to seeing doper's in spandex... Wait, cycling fans may be also so this is all moot.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

It's kind of surprising, with all of the resources that AC has, his team hasn't "found" any contaminated beef. Pay a cattle raiser with loose morals to give a cow an injection and they'd have their "evidence". It seems like he has universal support in Spain, and they couldn't come up with something....? Do the RFEC really expect anyone to buy this without any physical evidence to back it up? If Contador does get cleared on a technicality, hopefully the Societe TdF will hold him accountable and retract Saxo-Bank's invite.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

I'm curious what the response of the peloton will be? Contador was not exactly popular prior to this.

If he rides Algarve, I'd love to see the rest of the peloton protest by simply getting off their bikes for ten minutes when the start flag gets dropped. Let Saxo go up the road and make no attempt to chase. AC, Riis, and company will get the win but the sponsors would be mightily embarrassed at winning in this fashion. The fans? They'll cheer the "real race" that finishes ten minutes behind the daily Saxo team time trial.


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

Funny thing about this now is that prior to "steak gate", AC said that his racing schedule for 2011 would primarily focus again on the Tour only & any thoughts of doing a double or triple grand tour in one year wouldn't be given consideration till 2012. Well I guess with the worry about when the CAS will appeal his verdict has given AC some motivation as he's claimed that he wants to do the Giro now this year. 

Maybe thats going to be his strategy. Enter as many races while he can & try to win as many as he can. Cuz everyone likes a winner & maybe winning = forgetting that he's guilty. Should be interesting to watch none the less.


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

Lazy Spinner said:


> I'm curious what the response of the peloton will be? Contador was not exactly popular prior to this.


I haven't seen a single response from any pro riders. I guess they support low numbers of banned substances


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

peter584 said:


> I haven't seen a single response from any pro riders. I guess they support low numbers of banned substances


In reference to before: the outlook on AC's pending case (at the time) was mixed. I believe Rasmussen and JB defended AC, and Cancellara just hoped for the fairest ruling (not necessarily either way). Other riders like Thor weren't convinced that AC's own campaign for innocence is reasonable enough, Schleck cut the crap and revealed he wasn't all that buddy-buddy with AC. I think it was Merckx who also held a skeptical view. 

Opinions are kept to a minimum to maintain some type of maturity in the sport. You can't just keep drawing back to the case if you're a rider - maybe former riders and coaches. Makes for ugly press. I'd guess many riders will respond with "well, he's back" or "glad to see him again".


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

Ventruck said:


> Opinions are kept to a minimum to maintain some type of maturity in the sport. QUOTE]
> 
> No offense, but you're dillusional. Right after news of the Ricco transfusion, procyclists were lighting up twitter and press about what scum he was. None of the same riders has said a thing about Contador.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

gnauss said:


> Where he went wrong was not going to Radio Shack. Stay with Lance and you'll never test positive. Heras left and tested positive. Hamilton left and tested positive. Landis left and tested positive. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few. Moral of the story? Stay with the team which has the best doctors and you won't have to go throught this?


Wow; very interesting perspective :eek6: !

That's sure an eye-opening way of looking that things.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

The Weasel said:


> This might all be reason for doubt if it wasn't for:
> A - specific request to bring a steak from Spain (I always ask my cousin to bring Hebrew National hot dogs from PA to our NY bar-b-que because the NY Hebrew National hotdogs just aren't the same)
> B - eaten on rest day when by AC's own admission he doesn't normally eat meat on rest day
> C - conveniently the only other team member tested that day (Vino) did not eat the same meat
> ...


[Golden Earring]Help, I'm stepping into the twilight zone....[Golden Earring]



Excellent points.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

peter584 said:


> Ventruck said:
> 
> 
> > Opinions are kept to a minimum to maintain some type of maturity in the sport. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

They're probably afraid that he is going to go off on some drug induced rage!

Seriously, absent support from his team, what power would AC have?

I see AC as having little power _right now_. I see him being an attractive rider once he serves his 2yrs, but right now he is just a liability IMO.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*wow, what a great thought!!*



lastchild said:


> That's too bad cuz the racing was awesome...I'm sure Spain trembles at the thought of you not watching.


You are not watching a race, you are watching the performance of a pharma program. Racing stopped decades ago.


----------



## The Weasel (Jul 20, 2006)

lastchild said:


> That's too bad cuz the racing was awesome...I'm sure Spain trembles at the thought of you not watching.


Please, I don't presume that that by myself not watching is going to bring down the government of Spain or the Vuelta. But when enough people are turned off by the Spanish cycling federation's blind eye toward doping, and doping in general within the sport, it dimishes the importance of the race and reduces tourism dollars funneling in for that race. Money talks.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

fornaca68 said:


> peter584 said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent observation. The fact is the peloton knows how much power Contador wields and riders are literally afraid of saying something that criticizes AC publicly. The silence is deafening.
> ...


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

peter584 said:


> I haven't seen a single response from any pro riders. I guess they support low numbers of banned substances


The decision of the RFEC was made just yesterday, and cycling isn't exactly covered by the hordes of paparazzi of pop stars. So their response, and especially the reporting of their response, is a tad slower than the reporting of Lindsay Lohan's latest drug scandal. ;-)

Boonen:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boonen-cant-understand-why-contador-might-not-face-suspension

And a bunch of others (reported in Flemish):
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=G636DM2V

I think Katie Compton is saying, "Doping controls are now meaningless, anybody can get way by saying they didn't intend to dope." And Paul Martens is saying, "In Spain things are different, it's sad." And Bradley Wiggins, "Clarence Seedorf is one cool fella!"

L'Equipe typically posts reactions from the peloton, too.

Rue the state of the English-language cycling press.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

orange_julius said:


> The decision of the RFEC was made just yesterday, and cycling isn't exactly covered by the hordes of paparazzi of pop stars. So their response, and especially the reporting of their response, is a tad slower than the reporting of Lindsay Lohan's latest drug scandal. ;-)
> 
> Boonen:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boonen-cant-understand-why-contador-might-not-face-suspension
> ...


Yep. For the last few years, you watched the riders in the Alps and Pyranees steadfastly refusing water bottles handed to them during a ride unless they used them for cooling. Now they just "plant" a friendly "helper" with a bottle as they head out and voila, instant pick me up with a built in excuse.

Sad.


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

Snpiperpilot said:


> Yep. For the last few years, you watched the riders in the Alps and Pyranees steadfastly refusing water bottles handed to them during a ride unless they used them for cooling. Now they just "plant" a friendly "helper" with a bottle as they head out and voila, instant pick me up with a built in excuse.
> 
> Sad.



Brilliant!


----------



## iebobo (Jun 23, 2006)

If the steak aint fit, you must acquit!

What a farse. He must have eaten the plastic wrap the steak came in too. That would explain the plasticizers.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

iebobo said:


> If the steak aint fit, you must acquit!
> 
> What a farse. He must have eaten the plastic wrap the steak came in too. That would explain the plasticizers.


Yeah, that's weird but right now there is no official sanction for that right now.


----------



## joker (Jul 22, 2007)

i thought he said he had boil in the bag rice with the steak :thumbsup:


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

*reinstate Landis with refund*

Floyd only had a little testosterone and only 1 of 5 samples positive I think it was the Jack Daniels as he said.... time to reimburse him a couple of million and aplogize and oh yeah that tour de france trophy and his dead brother in law oh yeah his divorced wife and kid and his house and harley. what a gaddam joke.... some one needs to stick a pump in contadors wheel and end this punk a$$


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

If "El Pistolero" walks.....I mean rides, how many sponsors are going to walk?

This is becoming a joke.


----------



## mulkdog45 (Apr 5, 2006)

ciclisto said:


> Floyd only had a little testosterone and only 1 of 5 samples positive I think it was the Jack Daniels as he said.... time to reimburse him a couple of million and aplogize and oh yeah that tour de france trophy and his dead brother in law oh yeah his divorced wife and kid and his house and harley. what a gaddam joke.... some one needs to stick a pump in contadors wheel and end this punk a$$


:thumbsup: Yea pretty heart breaking.........and well said by the way.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

richard response to "any stupid questions." when I was 9, I went to a gas station for air for my bike ,, the gent suggested I go to the bike shop and then ask to exchange the stale air in both my tires as he suggested.... true.


----------



## M-theory (Jul 16, 2009)

ciclisto said:


> Floyd only had a little testosterone and only 1 of 5 samples positive I think it was the Jack Daniels as he said.... time to reimburse him a couple of million and aplogize and oh yeah that tour de france trophy and his dead brother in law oh yeah his divorced wife and kid and his house and harley. what a gaddam joke.... some one needs to stick a pump in contadors wheel and end this punk a$$



Not sure I follow the logic. Because they ruined Landis' life, you would now like to see them ruin Contador's? For me, two wrongs don't make a right...and I hope Contador is further cleared by the UCI, his TdF win reinstated and he's allowed to race in every event this year. 

Call me goofy but I hate when people's lives are ruined on the flimsiest of evidence. Stop and think of all the things he didn't test positive for. All the things Lance took when they didn't have the proper tests.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

M-theory said:


> Not sure I follow the logic. Because they ruined Landis' life, you would now like to see them ruin Contador's? For me, two wrongs don't make a right...and I hope Contador is further cleared by the UCI, his TdF win reinstated and he's allowed to race in every event this year.
> 
> Call me goofy but I hate when people's lives are ruined on the *flimsiest of evidence*. Stop and think of all the things he didn't test positive for. *All the things Lance took when they didn't have the proper tests*.


Interesting double standard there. Evidence on AC is flimsy, but the lack of evidence on LA is damming. I don't think both standards apply simultaneously, But I suspect YMMV.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

M-theory said:


> Not sure I follow the logic. Because they ruined Landis' life, you would now like to see them ruin Contador's? For me, two wrongs don't make a right...and I hope Contador is further cleared by the UCI, his TdF win reinstated and he's allowed to race in every event this year.
> 
> Call me goofy but I hate when people's lives are ruined on the flimsiest of evidence. Stop and think of all the things he didn't test positive for. All the things Lance took when they didn't have the proper tests.


Missed by 180 degrees just the opposite I said "they need to reimburse Floyd and apologize" to him if they are letting Signour Conty off of the hook. Floyd and probably all of them take the "dope" but letting Contador off is offensive when they ruined Floyd with pretty flimsy tactics, although eventually true. I suspect Contador will not be climbing like the "cocaine cowboyPantani) when under the microscope this year. I just would like a clean sport and if not then equal enforcement to all. At the time they jumped on Floyd in one day yet Alberto go four months when they knew he was positive+ at the time. Then let him have his iron and Cash. just ranting and sick of them
True funny story : the year Floyd won I had a photo of him and me on my desk and he was deposed.
the next year I had a photo of Mike Rasmussen and me on my desk and he was deposed. So my wife asked who was the next victim (jinx) I stopped but have a photo of Thor Hushvold (world champ) and myself this year.....maybe he can pay me to remove it.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

gnauss said:


> Where he went wrong was not going to Radio Shack. Stay with Lance and you'll never test positive. Heras left and tested positive. Hamilton left and tested positive. Landis left and tested positive. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few. Moral of the story? Stay with the team which has the best doctors and you won't have to go throught this?



yea right


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

orangeclymer said:


> yea right


Yea right; What?


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

I really hate to say this, but if the powers that be are going to let Contador off of the hook, then Landis should get his Tour title back. You can't ban one guy and then basically okay another doing the same thing. Both are dopers and should suffer their penalties. However, only Landis has. Contador should too, just like every other illegal PED user.


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

I love how the UCI and WADA opinion is irrelevant. 

Go Conty!!!!!!!

Totally innocent baby.

Conty is gonna destroy 2011.




ps: I heard Andy still can't operate the left lever...


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

iebobo said:


> If the steak aint fit, you must acquit!
> 
> What a farse. He must have eaten the plastic wrap the steak came in too. That would explain the plasticizers.



nah... flawed science + corrupt UCI and WADA...

Conty is cleared.. 

Dear UCI...

How do you like them apple's? (BOHICA.......)


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

aptivaboy said:


> I really hate to say this, but if the powers that be are going to let Contador off of the hook, then Landis should get his Tour title back. You can't ban one guy and then basically okay another doing the same thing. Both are dopers and should suffer their penalties. However, only Landis has. Contador should too, just like every other illegal PED user.


The difference is that Landis finally admitted that he had doped, whereas Contador steadfastly and consistently denied it. So Landis has effectively handed all the evidence UCI, WADA, and ASO needed. 

See, it pays to have good lawyers and your national fed (if not the UCI itself) backing you up. ;-)


----------



## joker (Jul 22, 2007)

Dear UCI...

How do you like them apple's? (BOHICA.......)[/QUOTE]

lol  :thumbsup:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

orange_julius said:


> The difference is that Landis finally admitted that he had doped, whereas Contador steadfastly and consistently denied it. So Landis has effectively handed all the evidence UCI, WADA, and ASO needed.
> 
> See, it pays to have good lawyers and your national fed (if not the UCI itself) backing you up. ;-)


Sure, he admitted after several years of denying it. Then again, I think it's important to note that he admitted to using EPO and tranfusions, for which he was never caught.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

fornaca68 said:


> UCI now saying it will take up to 30 days to study the Spaniards' decision before deciding whether to take this to CAS. WRONG. UCI should have sent a clear message that it was appealing this immediately. There is nothing to study. There was a test. Contador flunked it. He should have received a suspension like everyone else. UCI needs to be a leader here and show that they mean business.


Just as the riders and managers are corrupt with doping, the organizations are corrupt with graft, bribery, and politics. The UCI is going to wait 30 days for all interested parties to come up with their offers. Offers of future favors, backroom deals, maybe even straight up cash will come in. 
Just for example, the UCI might send the message that they'll hold off on appealing this and future cases if the team's managers fall in line with the decision to ban race radios. There's a million other scenerios.
If the offers meet their needs, no appeal. If the offers don't meet the UCI's expectations, they'll appeal, sending the message that the UCI has upped their price.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

M-theory said:


> Not sure I follow the logic. Because they ruined Landis' life, you would now like to see them ruin Contador's? For me, two wrongs don't make a right...and I hope Contador is further cleared by the UCI, his TdF win reinstated and he's allowed to race in every event this year.
> 
> Call me goofy but I hate when people's lives are ruined on the flimsiest of evidence. Stop and think of all the things he didn't test positive for. All the things Lance took when they didn't have the proper tests.


I'm with Contador here:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-its-a-great-step-forwards-for-the-sport

The amount of Clerbutenol found is an impressive scientific feat, but has no performance enhancing effect in itself whatsoever. 
But: We are in need of a plasticizer test, so that the transfusion ban can be reinforced. If we'd had one he might not have walked/ridden, which would have been fine by me.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

kbwh said:


> I'm with Contador here:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-its-a-great-step-forwards-for-the-sport
> 
> _*The amount of Clerbutenol found is an impressive scientific feat, but has no performance enhancing effect in itself whatsoever. *_
> But: We are in need of a plasticizer test, so that the transfusion ban can be reinforced. If we'd had one he might not have walked/ridden, which would have been fine by me.


He was found with an illegal substance in his system. Period; Paragraph. /Thread.

It is irrelevant if he benefits from it or not. The substance is banned. 


But the governing authorities of professional cycling are ignoring the rule stating it is ultimately the responsibility of the cyclist what he/she/it eats/ingests/masticates. Said authorities believe it was unintentional  . Which now sets a precedence (If it hasn't already been set).



I wonder what Floyd Landis thinks of the ruling.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Well, there have been cases in other sports, right?
Sometimes laws are wrong. But they will stay unless challenged. We'll see. This is lawyerfressen, and they may still have a feast.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

Imo, Alberto Contador saying that this decision is good for the sport is one of the most pathetic and absolutely unbelievable things that I've *ever* heard. It is purely an orchestrated publicity statement, intended to sway the court of public opinion, and perhaps even lessen the amount that angry fans will jeer and boo him. (except for the races occuring in Spain, of course).

I am amazed that many people can't see what has really happened here. The Spanish cycling fedaration has pulled a fast one, protecting yet another 'national hero', no matter what that 'hero' has or hasn't done, simply because they could. They tried to do the same with Valverde. It's been happening since the days of judge Serrano repeatedly closing the Operation Puerto case in order to protect high profile Spanish athletes and sports teams. 

Besides, do you honestly think that Fuyu Li would be treated the same way if he had claimed to have ingested some Clenbuterol tainted meat from China (which is highly more probale than Contadors completely unbelievable story)? I think not.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> He was found with an illegal substance in his system. Period; Paragraph. /Thread.
> 
> It is irrelevant if he benefits from it or not. The substance is banned.
> 
> ...


How come nobody is complaining about Armstrong's positive for hydrocortisone? Surely we should be holding him to the same standards.

...and who gives a hoot what Landis thinks?


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

No, _we_ cannot hold Lance to the same standards. After all he's from the country of baseball and American football...


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

spade2you said:


> How come nobody is complaining about Armstrong's positive for hydrocortisone?


Mainly because this thread is about Contador and what you're talking about happened over a decade ago 



spade2you said:


> Surely we should be holding him to the same standards.


If the roles were reversed the consensus would be the same, except instead of

"Spain sucks, Contador shouldn't get special treatment, and I hate Contador"

it would be

"The US is wrong, Armstrong shouldn't get special treatment, and I think Armstrong is an ass"


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cableguy said:


> Mainly because this thread is about Contador and what you're talking about happened over a decade ago
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see no difference in these cases. I just figure if we allow for Armstrong's non-therapeutic concentration, we shouldn't so fussy with Contador. Hell, I'm not even a Contador or Armstrong fanboy. The whole good guy/bad guy thing is kinda 'tarded.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

kbwh said:


> But: We are in need of a plasticizer test, so that the transfusion ban can be reinforced. If we'd had one he might not have walked/ridden, which would have been fine by me.


I think this test might have some merit down the line, but I think it could be potentially easy for lab contamination and many other things about this test are still unknown at this time. 

I'd think the specific preservatives and I think an anticoagulant or could also be used potentially.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I see no difference in these cases.


LA's and AC's cases are similiar, but not the same. LA's sample showed traces of something different (corticosteroid), but those traces were in an amount that was not in a positve range and his explanation (saddle sores) made sense on top of that. AC's sample showed traces of clenbuterol in an amount that *was* in a positive range, his explanation doesn't add up, and his case is overshadowed by direct precedents involving 1-2 year bans. Right?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Cableguy said:


> LA's and AC's cases are similiar, but not the same. LA's sample showed traces of something different (corticosteroid), but those traces were in an amount that was not in a positve range and his explanation (saddle sores) made sense on top of that. AC's sample showed traces of clenbuterol in an amount that *was* in a positive range, his explanation doesn't add up, and his case is overshadowed by direct precedents involving 1-2 year bans. Right?


So the first thing that Contador should do is to retro-actively produce a prescription for beef, clen, or ideally beef containing clen . Just kidding. 

Part of Armstrong's defense at the time was that the cream was prescribed, beyond the fact that the data point was below the threshold. The UCI then added the rule that such prescriptions have to be communicated to the UCI in advance.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Cableguy said:


> LA's and AC's cases are similiar, but not the same. LA's sample showed traces of something different (corticosteroid), but those traces were in an amount that was not in a positve range and his explanation (saddle sores) made sense on top of that. AC's sample showed traces of clenbuterol in an amount that *was* in a positive range, his explanation doesn't add up, and his case is overshadowed by direct precedents involving 1-2 year bans. Right?


And also a new case involving an athlete with a positive test in a similar concentration who was able to argue (but not show) that contaminated food is the most likely explanation. WADA have not appealed that case, we'll see what they do about Contador.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

But what about the plasticizers? Are they now saying there were none? 

Double-U Tee Eff?!


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

There was no doping compounds found in Conty. 

He is innocent.

This is a fact.

Conty is in the peloton and will crush 2011.

WADA+UCI... your corruption tentacles have been cut off.

Sux 2 b u.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*huh?*



shabbasuraj said:


> There was no doping compounds found in Conty.
> 
> He is innocent.
> 
> ...



Um, when you say 'Conty', are you talking about the same Alberto Contador that everyone is talking about? Because if you _are_, then I think that you haven't been reading much news lately. Unless you're just trying to be silly on purpose. Which _is_ silly, but not funny.  

By the way, you should have used 'were' instead of 'was' in your statement 'There _was_ no doping compounds found in Conty'.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

MaddSkillz said:


> But what about the plasticizers? Are they now saying there were none?
> 
> Double-U Tee Eff?!


Don't think that test is considered official yet. Great strategy, but probably should have been tested, verified, and approved before playing that card.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

I hope that everytime AC goes for a piss drug control is right there. It may even be more fun to watch him come last than sit out for two yrs. 

I still can't see how a guy can climb alongside Andy and then timetrial alongside Fabian. Defies physics to me. You can't be best at both.


----------



## slowdave (Nov 29, 2005)

i new cycling was dirty, and iu know that spain are poor sports in general, but im still in disbelief that it is so open. If there is no appeal, we should open the sport to the good and always honest WWE because it is no longer a sport as such but entertainment with strings pulled and dramas created. I will continue to race at my local level knowing that the guys i race with and against are clean ( or dirty in one case) but to believe in pro cycling will be hard to ever do again.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> ...and who gives a hoot what Landis thinks?


Obviously I do since I brought it up.


AC and FL tested positive to a banned substance yet the two were treated entirely different. From the first announcements all the way through to the final verdicts. FL's treatment should be textbook on how dopers be handled once tested positive. 

It is absolutely irrelevant what the intentions were with AC and FL in regards to why they had it in their system; They tested positive. 


As a nOOB to the in-depth look at pro cycling I see major discrepancies in how the governing bodies governs. And as such, I am of the opinion that said governing bodies have absolutely no interest in enforcing anti-doping rules much less stopping it. 

As much of a big fan of LA as I am, it sure appeared to me he was 'daddy's-little-girl' with said governing bodies once he started winning TDF. He was diplomatic in front of the cameras but down in the peloton, apparently, he could be a big *A*lpha *H*otel.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

biobanker said:


> I still can't see how a guy can climb alongside Andy and then timetrial alongside Fabian. Defies physics to me. You can't be best at both.


Contador did not TT alongside FC this year in case you forgot. 

If climbing and time trialing means you're obviously doping......well, I guess we need to take away the 7 wins from you know who....


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> Obviously I do since I brought it up.
> 
> 
> AC and FL tested positive to a banned substance yet the two were treated entirely different. From the first announcements all the way through to the final verdicts. FL's treatment should be textbook on how dopers be handled once tested positive.
> ...


Well, if you're bringing up Landis, I will keep reminding that he claims to have used EPO and transfusions, for which he never tested positive, so what is the freaking point?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

What a shame. This will be a big cloud over cycling for many, many years. If WADA and the UCI do not appeal, cycling can throw away the "leading the fight against doping."


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

Did they clear all other athletes with a "plausible" explanation of trace amounts of zero-tolerance drugs in their system.

What a bunch of crock.

AC failed a drug test. End of story.


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

biobanker said:


> I hope that everytime AC goes for a piss drug control is right there. It may even be more fun to watch him come last than sit out for two yrs.
> 
> I still can't see how a guy can climb alongside Andy and then timetrial alongside Fabian. Defies physics to me. You can't be best at both.


fail

fabian cheats with a motor.


this is a fact


back to conty..

this guy is gonna piss wherever he wants...

he is untouchable..

and did not have to buy a single thing for the UCI

or pay some ridic fine like other peloton chumps.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Well, if you're bringing up Landis, I will keep reminding that he claims to have used EPO and transfusions, for which he never tested positive, so what is the freaking point?


 You have to be kidding me :lol: !


The body of the very post you quoted clearly states my point. Go back and read it.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Well, for that matter the amount of testosterone found in Floyd has never been shown to improve performance in endurance sports either.

The most amazing thing about Contador's defense is that they so rapidly determined it was contaminated meat, out of all the possible sources. That alone can't be done and on top of that other cases of clenbuterol contamination resulted in far higher levels and poisoning in most cases. The low level is consistent with doping due to the very short half life of the drug.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Armchair QB's - QUIT backing AC. He HAS a positive A & B sample. Positive for Clen.
As another poster stated the rule: It is ultimately the riders responsibility for what they ingest. END OF STORY.

LA AGAIN is brought into this discussion and once again compared and it's REALLY incomparable....TOTALLY different circumstances....LA has never had A & B samples test positive. END of story....Did he likely "get away with it". SURE. LA though is NOT the subject of this thread (sure I'm joining late BUT).

piano, piano is RIGHT from his previous post's.....AC/Spain are a joke.
kbwh - what is your point?

On another note: Where's the OUTRAGE from Greg LeMond, "our own" "Dr. False" and other RBR critic's???


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

terzo rene said:


> Well, for that matter the amount of testosterone found in Floyd has never been shown to improve performance in endurance sports either.
> 
> The most amazing thing about Contador's defense is that they so rapidly determined it was contaminated meat, out of all the possible sources. That alone can't be done and on top of that other cases of clenbuterol contamination resulted in far higher levels and poisoning in most cases._The low level is consistent with doping due to the very short half life of the drug_.


Exactly!


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

DMFT said:


> Armchair QB's - QUIT backing AC. He HAS a positive A & B sample.
> kbwh - what is your point?


Main point: The zero limit for Clen is difficult to defend juridically, as WADA is learning. 
I'm not backing AC, btw.


----------



## shabbasuraj (May 14, 2005)

I think it is hillarious that the UCI and WADA got beat at their own game...

that game? corruption...

lol

science scchmience.... whatever.

Conty has and will NEVER serve a ban.

Not today not never.

THIS IS A FACT.

More grand tour titles are coming.

AGAIN FACT.


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

DMFT said:


> Armchair QB's - QUIT backing AC. He HAS a positive A & B sample. Positive for Clen.
> 
> piano, piano is RIGHT from his previous post's.....AC/Spain are a joke.
> 
> On another note: Where's the OUTRAGE from Greg LeMond, "our own" "Dr. False" and other RBR critic's???


And where oh where are the spelling and grammar police to point out the repeated incorrect use of apostrophes for crying out loud!


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

kbwh said:


> Main point: The zero limit for Clen is difficult to defend juridically, as WADA is learning.
> I'm not backing AC, btw.


This is basically the point. It is the small concentration coupled with the fact that it appeared suddenly (in such small concentration). Contrary to what other posters has said, this means contamination is a could candidate explanation. Of course, many of us believe this was a contaminated blood bag. But, I have to say, all of the talk of plastisisers is internet rumour (at this point).


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

terzo rene said:


> Well, for that matter the amount of testosterone found in Floyd has never been shown to improve performance in endurance sports either.
> 
> The most amazing thing about Contador's defense is that they so rapidly determined it was contaminated meat, out of all the possible sources. That alone can't be done and on top of that other cases of clenbuterol contamination resulted in far higher levels and poisoning in most cases. The low level is consistent with doping due to the very short half life of the drug.


It's not constistent with doping, that's the point. If it was, you'd see the Clenbuterol level go from some high level down to some small level over many days. In Contador's case it appears suddenly at a low level, then decays normally. Recall that they have many samples from AC where there is no positive. In most other cases, like Fuyu li, they have a low concentration. However, because they have only one sample, it looks like the tail end of the normal decay from doping. To get around this, a hair sample is needed to show it was contamination immediately prior to the test.


----------



## Snpiperpilot (Feb 13, 2011)

shabbasuraj said:


> I think it is hillarious that the UCI and WADA got beat at their own game...
> 
> that game? corruption...
> 
> ...


fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

Future events, be definition, cannot be fact. Your speculation may become fact but to say it is now, makes your position nonsensical.

I do believe that the one thing you stated that is fact is the Contador beat the UCI at their own game of being corrupt. Not something either of them should be crowing about.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

The Weasel said:


> Please, I don't presume that that by myself not watching is going to bring down the government of Spain or the Vuelta. But when enough people are turned off by the Spanish cycling federation's blind eye toward doping, and doping in general within the sport, it dimishes the importance of the race and reduces tourism dollars funneling in for that race. Money talks.


So how many fans have been turned of by doping scandals in the NFL, MLB, track and field?
Only problem with cycling is that it doesn't generate as many $£€¥ as the above mentioned sports.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Contador did not TT alongside FC this year in case you forgot.
> 
> If climbing and time trialing means you're obviously doping......well, I guess we need to take away the 7 wins from you know who....



Come on, man. "You know who" isn't really relevant here. If he doped and got away with it, it was by having lots of money and power and not his nationality. Some federations seem to be more prone to letting their dopers get off free than others and the Spanish federation appears to be one of these. I don't expect that other American cyclists would have as much luck as Armstrong did; I think Leipheimer or Dave Z. would get canned if they were busted. I don't think that some other nations would be letting Contador off so easily. 

Is there a Spanish rider that tested positive and suffered the same vilification that Landis did?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> Well, for that matter the amount of testosterone found in Floyd has never been shown to improve performance in endurance sports either.
> 
> The most amazing thing about Contador's defense is that they so rapidly determined it was contaminated meat, out of all the possible sources. That alone can't be done and on top of that other cases of clenbuterol contamination resulted in far higher levels and poisoning in most cases. The low level is consistent with doping due to the very short half life of the drug.


I'm not backing Contador here, but I think his claim that the clen came from Basque beef is not central to his argument against cycling authorities, which I think is that the clen detected was in such small amounts that it was inadvertent. I think kbwh's got it right: "The zero limit for Clen is difficult to defend juridically, as WADA is learning." 

I think Contador's team throws the Basque beef defense out there more as a PR move. And now they've pissed off a bunch of Basque beef farmers, so good luck on his next visit to la Vuelta a Pais Vasco .....


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/news/spanish-police-shut-down-another-doping-ring_160488
Spain punishes amateur cyclists who dope, not the money-making dopers such as Contador.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> And where oh where are the spelling and grammar police to point out the repeated incorrect use of apostrophes for crying out loud!



- "Who" care's? It's the intra-net don-cha-know?!?!?!

Not to mention I had a Sierra Nevada Hoptimum & Lagunita's (apostrophe's for your pleasure) Lucky 13 in me at the time of my writing's.


----------



## MSH (Jul 16, 2006)

DMFT said:


> ....I had a Sierra Nevada Hoptimum.....


Best post of this whole thread!---> THIS IS A FACT.

Ok carry on......


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

OK, so where does this leave SaxoBank?

If Contador pulls a Valverde and still races while the UCI/WADA sorts this out, will ASO pull the invite for SaxoBank if Riis intends to start Contador? There is precedence, with Contador no less, from the Astana days. I'm sure the UCI would whine about ProTeams being a lock, but ASO has shown in the past that they have their own ideas about who should and shouldn't race in their baby. Could make for an interesting bit of backroom drama.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

*Tom Zirbel chimes in*

Currently under a two year ban, where the "Strict Liability" clause was used by USADA, Tom Zirbel has some interesting comments on the Contador case.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zirbel-reacts-to-contadors-dropped-case


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

I really think that WADA needs to focus on recognizing, and authorizing testing that detects plasticers in the blood. Then we would really see what's up with Contador (and just a _few_ others). 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-anti-doping-expert-suggests-new-analysis-for-contadors-samples


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

ZING! POP!! POW!!!

“USADA has shown that they are completely consistent with how they handle doping violations, which is to take the hardest line available to them by the WADA Code. No, it hasn't crossed my mind...though I do remember having some tasty beef two days before my positive test.” 


Ladies & Gents, Tom Zirbel!!

Seriously though, the codes of the UCI and WADA need updating and need to be more consistent with each other. This is going to drag on for a long time kids.....What a shocker huh?

- Just keep telling yourselves "it's spectacle, not sport". Anymore that is.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

What a bummer that was. I remember watching Zirbel finish 4th in the WC TT and having big expectations for him before his suspension. Wasn't he able to actually produce a contaminated sample of the supplement he was using that caused the positive dope test, but the USADA took the zero tolerence/rider responsibility stance?

They definitely need to get rid of the national cycling feds ruling on doping cases. You've got hard line feds like the US & France, and then there's the Spanish federation that does everything they can to cover their stars. 

Something to think about...if Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Jan Ullrich, etc. were Spanish, would their careers have crashed the way they did?


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

*Meanwhile, in France:*

“If there’s a problem in terms of the anti-doping fight, it’s because of current rules which don’t follow the reality of scientific doping enough,”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fre...t-suggests-new-analysis-for-contadors-samples
EDIT & merde!: This link is the same as the one piano,piano posted. Sorry about that.

Yup. Validate a plasticiser test, and use it retroactively.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

BAi9302010 said:


> What a bummer that was. I remember watching Zirbel finish 4th in the WC TT and having big expectations for him before his suspension. Wasn't he able to actually produce a contaminated sample of the supplement he was using that caused the positive dope test, but the USADA took the zero tolerence/rider responsibility stance?


Something like that.  The zero tolerance seemed a bit too harsh in Zirbel's case. I felt especially bad since I think it's in supplements and not required to be listed since that industry is largely unregulated.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

I'm glad to hear from Zirbel about this; his case has been on my mind as long as this discussion has been going on. After years of domestic racing, Zirbel was about to break through into the big time and got popped with no mercy whatsoever. His argument seemed a little more believable than Contador's too. If I were Zirbel, this would be making me sick.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

thechriswebb said:


> I'm glad to hear from Zirbel about this; his case has been on my mind as long as this discussion has been going on. After years of domestic racing, Zirbel was about to break through into the big time and got popped with no mercy whatsoever. His argument seemed a little more believable than Contador's too. If I were Zirbel, this would be making me sick.


Yeah, I'm much more inclined to believe him over Contador, and not just because Zirbel is from the midwest.  

Perhaps worthy of a thread jack, but perhaps Zirbel and Contador shows exactly what's wrong with things in the big picture. We make an example of a guy like Zirbel, but we have to reach and ultimately fall short and let Contador continue? Then again, I have a feeling during a certain era, a few riders were given a free pass, but that's another story for another day.


----------

