Contador Decision Not Likely Until January
by Jen See on Nov 14, 2011 12:58 PM EST
in News
Email
Print
The Arbitration Court in Lausanne will begin a four-day hearing on the case next week. Contador will attend the hearing, and reportedly a number of his former team-mates will appear to offer evidence. Contador, who recently married, has just returned from his honeymoon.
As you all know by now, Contador tested positive for Clenbuterol during the 2010 Tour de France. The low level of the substance found in his samples and the presence of Clenbuterol in the food supply in varying amounts have complicated the case. After the Spanish Federation ruled in Contador's favor, the UCI and the World Ant-Doping Agency (WADA) filed an appeal with CAS. The arbitration hearings have been delayed twice at the request of lawyers on both sides of the case.
In its appeal, the UCI asked that Contador receive a two-year suspension and lose his victory in the Tour de France. The arbitration court has wide leeway in deciding the case and in determining what, if any, sanction Contador should receive.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Maybe a third option to the CAS
Since WADA is basically saying this is a blood doping case, then wouldn’t the case need to be referred back to REFC. The first trial is always before the national federation and the blood doping would require a new trial.
If it does go back to REFC, then wouldn’t this take another 2 years to settle (maybe longer if REFC refuses to prosecute like they did with Valderve)
I wonder if Conta will retire before the final word is given on this case
Agreed.
CAS has wide leeway in their ability to examine all evidence they consider relevent. So, if they decide it’s a blood doping case, it becomes a blood doping case, and they rule accordingly.
~ Gavia ~
Fastest way to get a serious verdict in doping cases
might be for the ADA to present a poorly evidenced case to the national fed, get a quick dismissal there and then appeal to CAS. Then they roll out the full battery of evidence at CAS. That way we don’t get the stalling as the clowns at the national feds bumble about “trying to understand”/work to get around the evidence against their favorite sons.
A for efficiency, F for legal security
CAS are allowed to pretty much reopen the case anew
and hear whatever evidence they want. Nothing has to be bounced up from below.
In other doping related news...
Movistar has postponed their presentation of Valverde as their new team member. The UCI sez because his suspension is still on, he can’t be showing up a team event.
~ Gavia ~
Do we have to go back to pretending we don't know he'll join them now?
I look forward to the day that I say something stupid ~ JJY
I think the UCI
would like us too, yes. But really, I’m not sure I can be bothered. Pretending, it takes soooo much effort, you know?
~ Gavia ~
cue Eric Clapton vid in 3, 2, 1 . . .
either that or Chrissy Hynde singing, “not me baby, I’m too precious . . .”
TourDeJose José Been
Valverde could be suspended for another 2 years if he shows up at team presentation; UCI rule 320 (via @sergi_lopezegea & @cobblesandhills)
I’m not really a fan of Ally-Vally’s pending return, but that seems a bit overly harsh.
I look forward to the day that I say something stupid ~ JJY
I just picture this:
December,31 2011 23:59:50
Velverde standing shirtless with his hands up under suspended Movistar Jersey!
Jersey starts slowly going down. Crowd starts countdown. 10,9,8,7,……..Happy New Year!
From nearby bushes, crawls out UCI representative, with chronometer in one hand and telephone pressed to his ear in other. Crowd become suddenly silent! " Keep celebrating, everything is legal" shout UCI representative. Velverde is back! :)
" I like that Cav got his wins…"
JJY 10/20/11
.
by holmovka on Nov 14, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Haha
That is a fantastic scenario. I want this!
I look forward to the day that I say something stupid ~ JJY
Yeah, you'd think they'd have bigger fish to fry
I look forward to the day that I say something stupid ~ JJY
what tour is this for again?
2008?
"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."
i thought doping was legal back then?
"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."
As I recall it was
illegal to use leeches to rebalance the humours
without a TUE from the apothecary
I see Contador plans to use a bit of Lie Detector machinery in his defense.
Perhaps Wada will respond with a bout of waterboarding.
November, December or January makes little difference at this point.
Velonation had an article today
Relaying some info from El Pais:
According to Spanish newspaper El Pais, various experts will represent WADA and seek to prove that a transfusion is the most likely origin of the rider’s clenbuterol positive.
To counter this, the rider will have his own team of specialists including a polygraph expert who will use a lie detector test to try to support the rider’s testimony.
I did some heavy research (google) this morning, it seem to be likely that CAS will respond with a “Cool story, bro” to the polygraph “evidence”.
According to Swiss law, the use of a lie detector, of narco-examination or of a truth serum as a method to establish the truth is not admissible on a constitutional basis. As a result, the CAS does not deem admissible as evidence a deposition based on a lie detector test. The CAS may take into consideration the declarations of persons in front of a polygraph as mere personal statements rendered by a party to the dispute and by a witness, with no additional evidentiary value whatsoever given by the circumstances that they were rendered during a lie detector test.
source [pdf]
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
According to Swiss law, the use of a lie detector, of narco-examination or of a truth serum as a method to establish the truth is not admissible on a constitutional basis.
However beer is permitted. And AC is skinny. Two Leffes and he’ll tell all
moo
Asked how he passed the polygraph test, [Aldrich] Ames explained that he sought advice from his Soviet handler and received the simple instruction to: “Get a good night’s sleep, and rest, and go into the test rested and relaxed. Be nice to the polygraph examiner, develop a rapport, and be cooperative and try to maintain your calm.”
C'mon now, haven't you seen the Oceans film?
You just stand on a tack whilst giving the baseline answer. Then the system thinks you’re permamently slightly stressed.
Ah, films. Where 95% of my knowledge is garnered.
According to Swiss law, the use of a lie detector, of narco-examination or of a truth serum as a method to establish the truth is not admissible on a constitutional basis
So I guess Sodium Pentothol is out too? Just how is Contador supposed to prove his innocence anyway if he can’t even drug himself?
Waterboarding?
go on, Alberto, it’ll really help your case.
This is something I've always disliked about CAS.
It’s meant to be an international tribunal, where any decisions in one nation by their panel/court can be appealed to what ought to be considered a higher court in CAS.
Yet CAS are still governed by Swiss law – they’re not truly international/independant.
So when you appeal to CAS, all you’re actually doing is taking a decision from a Spanish/Italian/British panel/court, and appealing to a Swiss court with specialist resources.
Money qoute for me...
Reeb says the wait is
"normal for a case of this complexity."
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
And let me get this straight
accomplices former teammates are going before CAS to testify on Contador’s behalf that they ate some steak too?
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Actually opposite of that.
They will testify, that greedy bastard ate stake all alone at night, under the blanket, making loud chewing noises, keeping entire team wide awake.
" I like that Cav got his wins…"
JJY 10/20/11
.
In related news, CAS revealed Jen See as chief arbitrator
promises decision “Wednesday, if surf’s down.”
by R Mc on Nov 14, 2011 5:51 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
For fuck's sake
Don’t let this go on into another season.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
+ infinity
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
What is interesting about the case though is that RFEC
and Conti have managed to cloud matters.
It was meant to be straightforward – zero clenbuterol should be in the system, there were traces, there’s a zero tolerance policy where athlete has responsibility for what’s in their system = WADA regulations say it’s a ban.
But then the caveats started, and the WADA regulation in question was almost downgraded to a base guideline. So many people in the last 18 months have had Clenbuterol in their system and either not been banned or had a ban overturned. It’s almost unjustified to hold Contador to that standard.
Of course though in his case is the follow-up suggestion that the Clen being found suggests blood-doping. However that will be something that must be proven – the existence of Clen was a very straightforward case, but proving blood-doping by a method of deduction is much more ‘flaky’.
In the meantime, how many others have been investigated in this way? What about the ISD-Neri rider who was banned after the race in Mexico (where Clen in meat is prevalent)?
Have any of these other athletes who have been ‘let off’ with Clen in their system then been accused of blood doping?
I think in order for a new precedent to be set, someone from a country such as the UK which has an absolute zero tolerance policy needs to get caught with Clen in their system. Presumably UK athletics would then ban them. Feeling hard-done-by, the athlete would appeal to CAS and then there’d need to be a decision made in an opposite manner to Conti’s case – whether it is ever reasonably to have Clen in the system and whether further tests/investigations for blood doping are neccessary.
It's all the inconsistency in the pursuit of the ban that frustrates me
I’ve had this problem with other cases prior to this as well, but it always seems that what one rider gets has little or no bearing at all on another rider.
take this from the velonation article:
El Pais states that group also includes a biostatician who will try to show that to return a positive test for clenbuterol, a very large amount of meat would need to be eaten to show traces in urine.
Well, what the heck? How did all those riders who tested positive in Mexico and China not have the same issues?
You’d think, that to test positive for Clen. that you’d have to eat a very large amount whether it’s in China, Mexico or France. So why didn’t the UCI/CAS bring in a Biostatician in those cases? (maybe they did, but if that already been proven what’s the point?)
It just always seems like we’re dealing with politics and money (no matter which way these cases unfold) than actual “justice” or “legal process”
If anywhere
I think once a case is before CAS, politics and money (except for good/expensive lawyers) is actually out of the equation. The road to get there is another matter……
I think they've moved on from the Clenbuterol accusations.
Cos so many people have been let off with having Clen in their system, that it’s a difficult thing to prove either way. Arguing the likeliness of having a substance in meat in a particular country is a difficult position for either side.
And the ‘prosecution’ aren’t pushing specifically for that anyway – they want to prove that the Clen wasn’t ingested in food, so that they can add purchase to their secondary accusation of blood-doping. But other than the Clen test and added caveats, they actually haven’t got much to go on. There is no blood-doping test.
I’d have to assume Conti’s blood stats are not irregular, because we’d surely know by now. And he’s one of the most-tested athletes in the world. So there’s not a great deal of evidence for the prosecution to use, other than pushing the Clen angle and then suppositioning by deduction that Conti must have blood-doped.
Personally I think he probably did blood-dope. But I don’t believe it’s going to be possible to actually prove that, and based on what we know right now, I don’t feel comfortable with a court managing to convict someone of it with such wobbly evidence.
How does the apparently abandonment of the plasticizer test by WADA b/c...
..contrary to what everyone was saying when I was arguing that the lack of ‘validation’ indicated unanswered questions with the science, it turns out that the science isn’t there and they can’t distinguish blood bags from other plastics?
it would seem that without something like the plasticizer, the blood doping angle on the clen is very, very, very weak.
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
