Contador: Science Says I'm Innocent
by Jen See on Jan 28, 2011 11:47 AM EST
in News
Email
Print
Alberto Contador gave a press conference this morning from the Saxo Bank team training camp. Bjarne Riis affirmed that he will continue to support the Spanish star, whom he hired at great expense at the end of last season. Hey Bjarne, how's that working out for you? The press conference came after the Spanish Federation announced its intention to ban Contador from cycling for one year, after he tested positive at the 2010 Tour de France.
During the Friday press conference, Contador rather predictably proclaimed his innocence. "I have never doped," he said. "I consider myself a shining example. The only mistake I made was to eat meat without having it analyzed." Want ads: Cycling team seeks Science Person to test meat before dinner. Call Bjarne for immediate consideration. Contador also asserted that "all the scientists" believe he's innocent. Paging Michael Ashenden, you have a call on line 1? Also, Don Catlin, please report to the white courtesy phone. All, that's a big number Señor Contador. "I feel like a victim and I will not give up until they modify the rules and the false positive is overturned," Contador promised. Translation: We can expect a long, drawn out appeal process.
In the meantime, the UCI yesterday felt obligated to clarify the current status of the Contador case. Apparently, we are all confused. According to the UCI press release, the announcement by the Spanish Federation on Wednesday is only "an interim decision" and "this information cannot in any way be considered as an anticipation of the definitive decision in the case." Well alrighty then.
The Spanish Federation has forwarded "one document" to the UCI, but it seems that this document represents only the first step in the process. It's not clear how many more steps there are, or what the exact process may be. Is it any wonder we're confused? The press release ends on a chiding note. Stop with the idle speculation Media People! Inappropriate Media People! "Considering the major media interest in the case, the UCI regrets the inappropriate speculation that has characterised the proceedings and expresses its desire that this affair be drawn to a conclusion in an orderly fashion." Consider us thoroughly chastized. Perhaps the UCI could send smoke signals when the decision reaches its orderly conclusion?
Gav's note: I have lifted the Contador quotes from the live updates by @saddleblaze. If a full English text emerges later, I'll correct as necessary. Sadly, I missed watching this thing live.
185 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"modify the rules"
yes, the rules are the problem.
also, it’s ashendEn, i think.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Was there no chastisement saved for DDIFP...
…surely we’re guilty of inappropriate speculation too.
I’m feeling very left out.
way below their radar
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
by umwolverine on Jan 28, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
ah, geez, conta. sit down, shut up, and take your medicine (no pun intended).
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Bert, please do what you said you would do when the positive was first announced: quit if banned.
Otherwise, STFU and take the one year gift.
At this point, I don’t actually care if you “accidentally” ingested the clen. The 1 year GIFT gave you the benefit of that doubt – and it was a GIFT. So STFU or just quit like you said you would.
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
Given that this almost ensures that the TdF will be an interesting race...
…one wonders whether the UCI should just automatically ban anyone who wins it more than once in a row for a year or two. Sort of like the ancient Athenian rule that once a year the citizens could vote to send one person into exile because he had become too prominent.
Or possibly, the rule should just be anyone who whines to the point of becoming insufferable should be banned until they learn to STFU, or…
Ban all guys who can TT and Climb?
With Contador gone we don’t know who will win the tour. It does make it interesting now.
To make the race interesting should we ban on all the guys who can TT and Climb? Or just feed them like Jan Ulrich?
How does this ensure that?
it’s probable Andy wins by 3 minutes with little drama. A duel with him and Bert again would have been far more interesting.
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
Is it raced in Italy? Do they actually take risks instead of letting money talk?
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
For one day
it shall sniff the greatness of the Giro. Of course it doesn’t finish on a 15% grade but I guess I can get over that(probably not).
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
Please narrow the roads to 2 feet as well
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
you're a pain in the a**
next you’ll be wanting nothing but bikini girls on all the post-stage discussion shows …
moo
Don't forget mutant man-goats
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
Pfft
Do you reckon that Cancellara can get away with that “Andy’s not very well today so no-one else is allowed to race” shit again
I reckon there won't be a slippy slide downhill section in Belgium this year
and to answer the question-Yes he probably would.
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
I don't think Hushovd will buy that argument again.
Others perhaps.
He'd better
he took way too much crap for doing the right thing last year. If you’re the patron of the peloton, you make the tough decisions.
Jens! doesn’t have a shadow because he dropped it repeatedly until it retired, climbing into the CSC team car and claiming a stomach ailment.
by dees ees en drama on Jan 29, 2011 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
We shall see.
AS is good. I’m not sold on him being an absolutely prohibitive favorite yet. Bert was becoming one, and one wonders, really how much of that was this kind of stuff.
The one thing about this entire affair that seems most damning in my mind is that when he’s finally really threatened and looking like he’s in serious trouble, bam gets popped for a doping product with a very short half-life. The co-incidence there, on reflection, just makes the whole battery of other, less likely, co-incidences he wants to cite as alternate explanations seem wildly implausible.
In that vein, if AS remains a strong, but not prohibitive favorite for the rest of his damn career, I’m gonna feel much better about thinking however many wins he racks up might even be legit.
huh?
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Shorter Ed...
…I no longer trust people who are apparently unbeatable.
Also, Memo to Bjarne:
It’s one thing to support the right of a rider you’ve contracted to due process; but you might want to start looking for a position that allows for the possibility that his sanction will be confirmed by that process, in which case you probably don’t want to be committed to supporting a doper. Unless, that is, you do.
Riis has made his stance clear about the case:
"My team will continue to support Alberto as long as the final ruling is not anything else than a case of intake by accident," Riis said. "It is extremely important to distinguish from those who try to cheat on purpose and those who take something by accident. It is those cheaters who we want to fight."
Article in velonews
It sounds to me Contador will get fired if he receives a 2 year ban, but action will speak much louder than this sort of PR babble.
Mr. 60 Percent wants to fight the cheaters
“It is those cheaters who we want to fight.” Gotta love the irony of that comment.
MJB
%*#$ the cheaters
(Sigh) Maybe it’s time to change the name
by Mr 60 Percent on Jan 28, 2011 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
Don't do anything too drastic. Maybe Mr. 61 percent, please don't do Mr. 50 Picos. :D
The skills really do go away if not practiced, and I don't mean to brag but I was getting very mediocre. - Tejay Van Garderen
Its very hard to trust anybody in this business, so until
we get some action, such a statement means very little (at least to me).
Did the ruling say it was an "accident" or is that statement just implicating it's the "ruling" because it's one year.
I also thought any ban would prompt teams to fire sanctioned riders. Am I mistaken?
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
by JustJoshinYa on Jan 28, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
We don't have an official ruling yet, but
a 1 year ban would suggest the panel thinks he didn’t deliberately dope, but I guess anything is possible. Lots of people are waiting for the final ruling.
Right, and here's the thing...
…the way Riis phrased that above, he’s leaving an awful lot of wiggle room. It could be parsed to mean, “I’m supporting him unless the panel can prove that he did take it deliberately,” where ‘prove’ presumably means something other than ‘assume he did in the absence of proof that he did not.’
Thus my concern.
I was thinking of a new sig line, but I can't decide...
I will do whatever is necessary to defend my innocence to the end—Alberto Contador
I am innocent and I will fight till the end to prove it.—Alejandro Valverde
I am innocent, and we proved I am innocent—Floyd Landis
But I am innocent—Riccardo Ricco
I am innocent…I was also told that the team believes in me, and they are prepared to take me back with open arms.—Ivan Basso
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
May I suggest, "grumble" instead...
It’s depressing when you read it that way. And…no Diluca quote?
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
by JustJoshinYa on Jan 28, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
I am innocent and not everything that is coming out shows that the method of the French lab is unreliable--Danilo Di Luca
Sorry, only so many hours in the day…
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
You and Super Ted - SCARY
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
by JustJoshinYa on Jan 28, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
Really? Ah, heck--now I feel embarrassed.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
Stay out of my dreams.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
Broken Record Syndrome
“I have passed ‘x’ number of controls…”
Of course you passed lots of controls, until you FAILED one.
duh…
by ManBicycleThing on Jan 28, 2011 2:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Didn't Ricco admit it right away? The Cobra looks like a doping saint compared to the others in my opinion
"Thanks again, Floyd Landis, Yellow Jersey Wearer: Nuisance Category"
Quicker than others
but not instantly. I didn’t make up any of these quotes.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
thanks for the clarification! i thought that was just off the top of your head. Depressing that is what they actually said!
"Thanks again, Floyd Landis, Yellow Jersey Wearer: Nuisance Category"
For a second
I wasn’t sure if you were referring to “innocent” or “science”
"It was getting colder and colder as we went up. About halfway up, I started to go a little backwards and as I passed Thor he looked at me and said, "If you lose my wheel I will smash you." I took his wheel and found an extra gear." João Correia
Take a look at the team composition.
After the mass exodus and now with Contador out, Porte’s about all that’s left. To put it in VDS terms, subtract Bert and the whole team’s worth is 2429—and Porte accounted for 1010 of those.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
subtract Bert and the whole team’s worth is 2429—and Porte accounted for 1010 of those.
That is very illustrative. The VDS is a powerful tool ;-)
moo
We must strive to use it only for good.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
It makes me wonder if Riis really want Contador to appeal the coming ban.
Of course, Contador will do it anyway, so the discussion is rather useless.
dong well in the Giro (7th) your first year on a PT team vs. riding the TdF as two seperate things
Not saying he isn’t talented, because he is, but he has a lot of learning before I would consider him a contender for the TdF. Like another year or two. For the Giro/Vuelta I think he could have a shot at top 5 this year. If he rides the TdF, I think he would be lucky to break into top 15.
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
You mean '07? He was 21 at that time and in his 3rd year on a PT team. Not sure I would start comparing
Porte to Schleck A. as it is still very early. Porte and Schleck A are both born in 1985, so it is safe to say that Andy is a bit ahead of Richie development and experience wise.
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
You are welcome.
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
by Ahillock on Jan 28, 2011 8:25 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I'm hoping this is all a bluff on AC's part
To get the UCI to go along with a ‘We won’t appeal if you don’t’ kinda deal.
Up to this point, I haven’t seen that level of cleverness from Alberto and his people. However, I KNOW that Bjarne Riis is that clever. Hopefully, he will talk some sense into AC.
by ManBicycleThing on Jan 28, 2011 1:52 PM EST via mobile reply actions
WADA's gonna appeal this if the UCI doesn't.
Bet on it.
yep, it is just the beginning
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
I think that's why I have, like, zero 'oh this is a big deal I'm excited about it' feelings...
…just none whatsoever.
at least he will get 1 year vacation and hopefully UCI/WADS makes it 2 years vacation
I’m just happy that he got at least 1 from RFEC since I was worried they would do nothing at all and pass on the duty to someone else.
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
WADA could very well appeal
the one-year sanction anyway. If, when the sanction is final, it’s still a one-year sanction, there’s no guarantee Contador will get only one year. He’s better off fighting for what he believes than accepting what he thinks is wrong and getting screwed again by WADA anyway.
WADA will appeal anything less than a 2 year, I think.
What I meant to imply above.
If I only have 25 cents for every " I am innocent!".
"I love bike races warm up, warm down, cobbles mountains or flats."
perezbike
.
Two questions for those that know
1) At what point does the rider need to pay the 70% of their earnings when busted for doping? Is that something that AC could be forced to do?
2) I know many times in the past once a rider was even suspected of doping the team put the said rider on suspension (i.e. Ballan (BMC), Santambrogio (BMC), Pellizotti (Liqui), Valjavec (Ag2R). Those are just the ones from last year that I can remember. So why hasn’t Riis/SBS suspended Contador already? Can a rider that is provisionally suspended/suspended still train and be on a team?
Thanks guys.
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
1) Only if he gets the two year suspension, I believe.
2) Because the UCI haven’t made their decision yet, officially; because without Contador Saxo is nothing unofficially.
Death before decaf! :D
- gavia
Thanks.
Pellizotti was no small fish on Liqui, it is curious to see how SBS is handling the situation. I know AC is their man and they spent $$$ to make this a GC team, but it seems like it is a no win situation for Riis/SBS. Might as well cut their losses and move on (wait a year, use Porte, spend money on another rider (Menchov)…etc.).
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
Riis did suspend Basso and eventually got rid of him.
I think the current situation relates to the issue that Contador tested positive when he was with Astana, so perhaps Riis needs more data from the ruling.
Why hasn't Riis suspended him
Why bother so far because it’s still only January and he hasn’t yet paid him a penny in salary.
because Riis trusts his rider (rolls eyes)
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
iirc, conta got permission from the uci to be at the training camps
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Does Contador realize he got essentially got the "you are innocent" punishment?
He got the “substance in body” punishment. Not the “you doped” punishment.
There’s no dispute the substance was in his body. It was.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
Great job Bjarne
support a convicted doper while he’s under suspension, because it’s not like it’s any big deal. Of course most team managers would fire a rider in that position, but its ok this time, because there clearly is a realistic excuse for a positive test, right? This is kind of ridiculous, and to think this was once a team that took a definitive anti-doping stance.
Greg LeMond of course.
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
Sastre
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
yep I totally agree.
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
Bjarne also supported FSchleck when he was caught transferring 7000 euros to Dr. Fuentes, so I don't think this is a departure for Riis
"Thanks again, Floyd Landis, Yellow Jersey Wearer: Nuisance Category"
If I don't remember wrong, F Schleck was indeed suspended by the team for a period
while the investigation was ongoing. I also seem to remember that A Schleck decided not to ride as long as his brother was suspended. Others may have better details/memory here.
If Riis really ran a tough anti doping regime, he would have fired F Schleck and if the official verdict from Spain includes any kind of ban, he should fire Contador.
He was suspended or at least put on in-active status
until the Lux fed decided there wasn’t enough evidence to build a case.
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
No telling how sincere it was
In retrospect it looked like a well staged PR event by Nygaard.
Act 1 The Suspension
Act 2 The Inconclusive Inquiry
Act 3 The Repentant Fränk apologizes to sponsors and is welcomed back
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
Riis could have ejected F Schleck "for cause" if he wanted,
even without the Lux Fed case imo.
Agree about the damage control.
:-) and Monaco, those guys are brutal
But seriously, I don’t think just a banktransfer would suffice as evidence in any case anywhere really? No matter how cynical we are of cyclists and what services they might purchase from notorious gynecologists .
My bags are guaranteed sand-free.
I dunno, it's pretty damn strong circumstantial evidence
Given it’s hard to think of any credible expensive gynaecological services Fränk would require….
Ah well, thus it goes
by Sarah Connolly on Jan 30, 2011 4:23 AM EST up reply actions
He at least provisionally suspended Schleck
and they never really pinned down those suspicions. The fact is Riis’ sponsors were and may still be dependant on Contador’s future with the team, so he’s gonna bypass any unwritten ethics in this case.
Maybe, maybe not . . .
Odds are that Sinyard and co. at Specialized are picking up the bulk of Contador’s salary.
I’m not sure WHAT their play is, except that I’d expect to see MANY articles about Cavendish and his Tarmac in the next few weeks.
The current title sponsors have publicly stated that they support Riis for 2011
regardsless of whether Contador is on the team on or not. That element is pretty clear. Also it remains to be seen if Riis takes action after the offcial ruling. When we have the ruling and if it is a ban, we will be able to see if Riis follows the Basso path and fire Contador or if he follows the Schleck route and lets Contador continue on the team. I think all options are still on the table.
Typical convicted talk
is it too soon for a premature cobbles post? Because all this doping/blackmail talk is tiring. Not to restrict the conversation about it, carry on.
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
I will NOT get off your lawn!
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
Do grasshoppers prance around on sand?
"I just want to say fuck you, and I mean that in the most professional way" -Brandon Llyod
SAVE CHAUNCEY!!!!
Silly. If they did, they'd be sandhoppers.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
This scientist says,
Dear Mr. Contador; being admittedly unable to make an airtight case that you doped is quite a different thing from believing in your innocence. Don’t push your luck.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
I believe Contador and support him.
I hope his case helps bring about reform at the UCI and WADA, better representation for riders, and an improved situation re human rights in the peloton.
I'm all for reform and rider representation
but ha, my check isn’t in the mail with yours, that requires way too much faith.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Are you being serious or are you being a troll?
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
by Ahillock on Jan 28, 2011 8:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
'Human Rights'?
I don’t think that term means what you think it means. As far as I can tell, NOTHING involved in the administration of professional athletics involves human rights.
What do you think I think human rights means?
Human rights in the peloton would be a good discussion in itself.
Darfur begs to differ.
Cyclists deserve some rights – but “human rights” is a little bit bigger then sport.
"I briefly played on a soccer team where we took great joy yelling 'come on fuschia'" by Willj
by JustJoshinYa on Jan 29, 2011 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
Must read-o-rama
A must read from Bonnie Ford over at ESPN, Contador case sets bad precedent
One key detail in the Ford piece worth noting: Unlike in the U.S. or in many other WADA signatories countries, in Spain the Spanish cycling federation decides doping sanctions. This is the exact conflict of interest that WADA is intended to avoid. In the U.S., USADA handles anti-doping cases, in Italy, it’s the anti-doping authorities at CONI. This arrangement separates the people who are charged with promoting the sport from the people who charged with adjudicating doping cases. Spain, not on that program.
That is a great point. Thanks for sharing.
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
by Ahillock on Jan 28, 2011 8:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Then again, this is what has been a pretty constant source of complaint in re: Spanish sports...
…for about a decade now. If they want to know why people keep looking awry at them, possibly they should consider the degree to which their institutions look rather less than likely to produce a transparent and reliable result.
Ugh.
Do they even make a credible pretense of giving a shit?
Isn't their corporate slogan
“Slightly more legit than the WWE”?
And the UCI failed… on all accounts. - tgsgirl
by omnevelnihil on Jan 29, 2011 8:02 AM EST up reply actions
Is that what they changed it to when they got rid of...
…“head injuries? What head injuries?”
That problem rests with the UCI and WADA, not with RFEC
If I recall correctly, RFEC was asking for involvement in this process by MORE governing bodies, and everyone was saying how stupid the Spanish cycling federation is, and how that showed how poor they are…
Now, it’s the inverse of that. Less involvement somehow indicates futility.
This problem is a UCI/WADA problem. Full Stop. They are the ones who say “It’s the national federations who handle this, not us.”
The UCI could appoint WADA to do all of the processing… or another impartial governing body…(although the CAS can do that job downstream and eventually would likely anyway)
That RFEC handles doping violations in Spanish cycling doesn’t mean that it’s not credible. That’s a completely dubious assumption. It’s how they handle them that is a measure of their credibility. Is it ideal? No. But neither is what we have anywhere.
But the UCI and WADA need to figure out their shit to correct that.
It’s not like USADA has some shiny record that RFEC doesn’t have. The USADA is under more scrutiny for there “turning a blind eye on doping in all sport” than RFEC has ever seemed to be.
Spain doesn’t have an anti-doping body because the Civil Guard handles that. You would prefer another governing body in Spain to be involved? Why not 20? It’s the same as doping… more tests doesn’t PROVE you’re clean. MORE governing bodies doesn’t either.
The CAS gets last word on this anyway… if there are appeals. I don’t see any value in the argument that RFEC handling this, is somehow a grave injustice to other cyclists or countries.
Well
if you’d like to change the rules, have at it. But as the rules stand, the national authorities have the responsibility to sanction their riders. Er, full stop.
I don't see what the complaint is then.
If RFEC is doing what they do under the current rules, are we just complaining for the sake of complaining… or we want the Civil Guard to start a ‘doping suspensions’ department?
If the UCI/WADA/or other have a problem with it, then do something about it. It still lies at their feet, if they feel that RFEC isn’t competent.
Changing the rules for improvement… should improve things no?
But in this case
the Spanish authorities tried to serve the interests of everyone—the rider, and the governing and disciplinary bodies—but failed to satisfy anyone.
I think Bonnie Ford is incorrect that the Competition Committee answers to the RFEC president.
Also don’t think it’s fair to assume that the federation’s inquiry is a farce, even though they’re between a rock and a hard place.
And as for whether or not Contador should get a break from the standard two-year sanction, how can any sanction be justly issued under Strict Liability? It’s not an effective policy in a world of environmental contamination. You have to back up and ask if it’s right to punish an athlete for a level that could’ve—and does sometimes—come from food or water, etc.
Well, here's something anyway...
This article from VeloNews says that the president of the Spanish federation has nothing to do with decision-making, and that the president does not see the case files.
An article in Publico.es on Nov. 10 describes the committee members as “four independent professionals,” who receive some input from the federation’s anti-doping commission.
One more thing about Bonnie's points,
She writes “And all the disputed agricultural statistics in the world don’t explain why Contador should get a break from the mandatory two-year suspension.”
Yes, they do explain why he should get a break, and so should the other athletes in like circumstances!
Gotta change that rule—it’s unrealistic, it’s medieval.
Why should he get a break from your view?
"We saw death and I don't think we fear it anymore. Not unlike 2005, when we finally clinched and then we took off in the playoffs." Coop 7/29/10
by Ahillock on Jan 28, 2011 8:24 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Because it's not right to punish for doping when there is a real possibility that the substance was accidentally ingested through contaminated food.
There are proven cases of this happening, it’s not unreasonable. Athletes should not be punished for it. That’s why the rule should be re-examined, and a minimum level set.
That’s square one.
In case you haven't read it,
Good article by John Leceister of the AP: Bad Food Can Harm Innocent Athletes
And Leicester's column post-Spanish federation ruling:
Contador ban a wishy-washy cop-out
Associated Press. This also appeared in the Washington Post.
You can agree that the standards should be verified against real-world ingestion risks
-and I do-without believing in your heart-of-hearts that Contador very likely came by his positive in that manner (I personally go with “possible but not terribly likely”).
Look, I think we all agree that some substances can enter the body innocently, and others can’t. But there’s still a question of likelihood. IMHO, the Chinese rider was the one most likely slammed by contamination, and he either didn’t bother or wasn’t given the chance to make that case.
It sets a bad precedent for riders to be able to claim food contamination based on special meals bought under strange circumstances and fed only to them. Why? Because it encourages the DS or team doctor or rider to document that they are serving the rider some personal odd shit on special days. And then, when a rider suddenly drops out citing stomach disturbance, or claims a blood passport problem was due to near-death by diarrhea due to food poisoning, or pops a positive, they do the “I could have had a V-8” move, and say, “wow, it must have been the special food!”
Have to say, I went through WAY too many riders while picking VDS teams who had a good season followed by a non-season due to actual or suspected cardiac arrhythmia. (Kept one or two, dumped some, for those keeping track.) I don’t think our new crop of young-uns are “mostly clean,” frankly. I think the need a damned good scare, frankly.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Look, I think we all agree that some substances can enter the body innocently, and others can’t. But there’s still a question of likelihood….
It’s NOT a question of likelihood. It should never be. It needs to be a question of FACT and PROOF. Look, if the UCI and WADA keep putting the onus on athletes with tests that aren’t sound, they will continue using tests that aren’t sound. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Yeah… well, if it is broken… they will fix it fast.
I’m not saying riders should “get away with it” if that is in fact the case, but the UCI and WADA need to be on top of things.
“No doubt about it,” Detlef Thieme, who heads Germany’s other WADA-accredited lab, in Kreischa, says of the possibility of false positives from food. “That’s undisputed.” It’s “a very pressing problem and the faster it’s solved, the better.”
They’ve GOT to get it solved NOW. The more you ban athletes for a testing method that has holes, the more the testing bodies are covering up for their own shortcomings with “strict liability” and that isn’t right.
The function of strict liability
is to ensure that athletes/doctors do not take risks with substances that they are uncertain about. (protecting the health and well-being of an athlete)
“You didn’t know about that substance” is not an excuse.
NOT
to ensure athletes live their athletic lives in a situation of infinite uncertainty.
There is a big distinction there, and regardless of what you or I think of Alberto Contador, the rules need to reflect that distinction.
All tests incorporate likelihood, explicitly or implicitly.
Type 1 vs. Type 2 error incorporates both intrinsic problems with the test—i.e. if you test the same, guaranteed uncontaminated sample, what’s the chance of coming up with a false positive, and if you test a guaranteed contaminated sample (at some concentration) multiple times, what’s the chance you’ll come out with a false negative. When we’re talking about something that is either normally present, like testosterone, we’re looking at cutoffs based on likelihoods, too. Ditto RBC levels. The same is also true with a substance that is present at non-zero levels in a population through the tainting of the food and water supply. We are essentially ALL positive for plasticizers of various sorts, IF you have a sensitive enough detection mechanism, and if you set the cut-off for defining a positive test at a minute enough level.
Tests only say “yes” or “no” by the time they are simplified to do so. The underlying test—whether it’s antibody based, PCR-based, HPLC-based, or based on any other detection method I can think of—is not yes/no until someone chooses a cut-off level based on likelihood.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Did the plasticizer test disappear?
Did I imagine the whole thing?
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
The test isn't officially validated yet, so it can't be used by itself.
Guy from WADA said it could be considered as supporting evidence, but that doesn’t mean the Spanish Fed had to consider it.
And there was a report earlier this month that the test is moving closer to validation.
It definitely got played into the ground. Even I was flinching after a while--Tyler Farrar, on that Transitions ad.
Thanks, I didn't really think it was my imagination.
But damn, it certainly has been dropped from the articles of late and everybody’s just looking at that tiny little amount of Clen in his system and thinking: “Well, maybe he really did just eat some tainted beef.”
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
For now
it has disappeared, yes. I suspect that’s not a battle the Spanish Federation has any interest in fighting. Favoritism, maybe, but more likely basic practicality. It’s a space in the case that will almost certainly lead to appeal, because the test is not officai and stuff. Why not let WADA do the dirty business of all that lawyering up? A bit weak, maybe, on the part of the Spanish Fed., but not especially surprising. I’d expect the plastics to reappear in a later act of this particular drama.
Good, I'd hate to see people wallowing in a sea of pity for Contador over just the Clen.
I certainly see why the Spanish Federation is passing the buck, but I can’t wait till it comes back into the equation and Contador is forced to answer how he ingested the plasticizers.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
They were his special water bottles...
…already seasoned with the taste of his liquified beef from his special shop in Spain.
And he puts the water bottles in the microwave
to warm up the liguids on cold training days.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Don't forget that he lines them with old blood bags...
…purely for insulation.
Yeah
I don’t think it’s gone, but I could be wrong. I did mention it in my original story on this thingy – cuz like you, I noticed it’s rather noticeable absence.
All of this seems to be following what I took to be the only reasonable course...
…back when this got argued out originally, namely that the non-validated test just couldn’t be used to decide this case.
Assuming it’s really reliable (of which I have no doubts), I actually think the one place that they got this quite right is to avoid making any substantive use of something that hasn’t had its evidentiary and procedural uses clearly established. The can of worms that opens up in a case like this is absolutely not what’s needed.
Was there ever an official announcement about the plasticizer test?
What information is there, other than what is said to have been leaked from the Cologne lab via a German journalist?
Sorry, I meant was there ever an official announcement about traces of plasticizer being found.
Not the test, the actual finding.
This.
REVWW Or mother in law’s dog’s vanishing twin RT @mikefriedman2: But when doped riders get caught and raise hell, “oh its my girlfriends” …
MJB
According to Wikipedia...
The Hirsute One, Leonardo Piepoli: “In January 2009, he was suspended from the sport for two years.”
Is any team signing him?
Racing for Victory and Free Beer!
He's 39, unlikely to race again.
The skills really do go away if not practiced, and I don't mean to brag but I was getting very mediocre. - Tejay Van Garderen
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
Related FanShots on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
