Contador Case: Recommended Readings

just wondering whether it would be from July

then he would lose his Tour victory. That will be huge. Surely that is just the thing they like to avoid. I’m guessing it will be explained as: concentration not high enough to be performance enhancing, moreover it was on a rest day so his performance wasn’t affected at all, day before and day after he was clean.

ASO may not let him race next year, on technicality of course. They’ve done it to him before when he didn’t actually do anything, I believe they may tell SB sorry, we’re not accepting him.

its amazing that the Milram boys never had these kind of problems…

and now we will have cases where it can’t be proven but is suspected and then what?

Conta’s claim could very well have happened (it’s possible). Plenty of other possibilities exist. Prove it.

Why test for the plasticizer at all if you would rather not find it? And as for the way they seem to have kept the clenbuterol positive under wraps, the point would have been not to hide it permanently, but to do further investigation without a lot of fuss and contention.

My feeling is that of course they would rather he had not tested positive for the clenbuterol, but since they can’t “unfind” it, their next best alternative is to find clear evidence of blood doping. That way they can ban him in the good old “swift and sure” manner…. not for something as marginal as traces of clen.

I think their worst nightmare is a case like Valverde or Landis, where it drags on for years and years.

"as a prosecutor you have a basic problem going ahead on the Clen alone"

Not sure I see why?

because test 3 was on a rest day? I don’t know, i am asking.

is summarised here as

“The burden of proof required by the WADA Code and adopted in CAS cases such as French v ASC, NJYW v FINA and K. and G. v. IOC is derived from the Australian High Court decision of Briginshaw v Briginshaw (McLaren, 2006, p.11). In French v ASC, the CAS stated that the standard of proof required to be met by the Australian Sports Commission was somewhere between the balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the more serious the offence, the higher the level of satisfaction required by the Panel. It is because of the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences of an adverse decision for the athlete that the elements of the offence must be proven to a higher level of satisfaction than the balance of probabilities. A very high standard almost approaching beyond a reasonable doubt might be required in some cases (French v ASC).”

The case of AC is bolstered only be there being a sequence of tests. If this was an isolated test showing up positive – case closed. But the other tests at the very least cast doubt on his ability to have doped with Clen in that timeframe – the current available charge. As a prosecutor it would be more than extremely helpful to have some extra information prior to proceeding with a case based on the five urine tests. Maybe the plastic is it – but without something it is not convincing enough.

(The EPO cases are a direct result of the EPO test being a threshold test – see Rossi for the best example of that one. Isn’t the Clen test a bit like one for pregancy – yes/no, no maybes?)

Howman is WADA. As voices to follow in this mess, his is kinda worth singling out.

We still believe Santa was born on Christmas Day just like everyone else, we just celebrate the day before.

It’s still a scientific test, sounds just as legitmate as any other doping test, is just hasn’t gone through the whole process of becoming validated… yet. Don’t know anything about the process, but I’d bet it’s very close to becoming part of the regular scanning .

Well of 14 cases cited since 1987, none has done better than just a one year ban – and that one everyone seems to accept was an innocent mistake – so no, there is not wiggle room for a warning.

a substance that has a long history of entering into the food supply

To rephrase the question civetta keeps asking: where’s the fucking evidence? Where’s the athletes constantly tripping clen AAFs?

The studies I’ve seen about how long it takes for clenbuterol to show up in urine are all looking at samples that went into the stomach. Could be different time for the plasticizers and the clen.

Or, if multiple transfusions, plasticizers might leach out differently in different blood bags. There’s a problem in the world of Barbie collecting with phthalates leaching out of certain runs of vintage dolls. It’s very much linked to the conditions under which the dolls are stored (heat and light affect leaching), but not absolutely—some dolls stored under terrible conditions are fine, while others kept in archival environments still leach.

Snark-infested sarcasm is a dumb response—even (and especially) if your point of view happens to be correct.

“And you think it’s legit to bash the media for bringing this to the attention of the public?”
“And do you really believe that CAS – the ultmate arbiters in this one – will be moved one iota by anything other than the rules and the facts of the case?”
Please quote whatever I said that caused you to jump to the conclusion that any of this is true.

The un-certified test is no issue in the case

The german journo released it. If he hadn’t we would never heard of it and it would (and still won’t) never have been used against AC. It has no legal value whatsoever.
Publishing it was just sensationalism and I think everyone should just disregard it.

That’s only true if you believe the UCI, and other powers-that-be, are truly looking to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, it’s fairly easy to be suspicious of UCI motives …. and one can (at least) argue that the reporter is doing a service by uncovering info that may have been buried – but also may provide some insight.

I buy into the the UCI-is-corrupt concept. Just not sure how corrupt

I don’t have to disregard it. You’re right I should, but I’m too weak. It’s out there and I bought it.

but I suppose they saved this from being a bigger deal because the fair weather fans are already tuned out by now. Either they should’ve followed typical procedures and alerted the proper people about the findings as soon as was possible, or they should’ve just kept the same tune of trying to make sense of the case and not suspended him until they had more reason to do so. If this is cut and dry then suspend him. But if it was cut and dry, then they should’ve done so a while ago, so clearly they don’t believe this to be a simple matter. my only question is if it’s not a simple matter, then don’t give him that provisional suspension if you feel like there’s more to it then doping.

In the case of football you’re likely to never find out ever.

Is that because Clenbuterol is also transmitted during extra-marital sex?

Timing and awareness.

Specifically, when did the UCI know that Contador had tested positive for the plasticizers? I’m not too bothered by the use of a test unknown to the cyclists. After CERA, I’ve sort of come to expect that, actually.

I am potentially really troubled by the possibility that the UCI was willing to sit on evidence of a blood transfusion in favor of dealing out a minimal suspension for clenbuterol . . .

I really enjoyed that part, though if Contador is telling the truth that the UCI told him not to say anything, then it’s also a rather disquieting part of the story.