CAS+AC=#winning
by Sui Juris on May 26, 2011 9:52 AM EDT
Email
PrintShane Stokes confirms that CAS will not hold the hearing on Alberto Contador's status until after the Tour de France:
The Court of Arbitration for Sport has confirmed the earlier suggestions that the previously-scheduled dates had been changed. Spanish newspaper AS suggested the hearing would take place in either July or September, thus past the start point of the Tour de France.
In a statement issued this afternoon, CAS suggests all parties concerned had agreed to the change. “Following the agreement between the Appellants and the Respondents, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has accepted to postpone the hearing in this matter in order to give to all parties concerned reasonable time to prepare for such hearing and to guarantee the participation in person of witnesses and experts.
“Accordingly, the CAS Panel has decided to cancel the hearing initially scheduled for 6-7-8 June 2011.
New hearing dates will be fixed as soon as possible.”
It's like someone hates pro cycling or something.
193 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
and now with more thought:
It’s ridiculously stupid…
by JustJoshinYa on May 26, 2011 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I've given this consideration for a good part of the day...
+1
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Is it okay, if after even more reflection, I were to add a WTF to it, such as:
WTF, it’s ridiculously stupid!
by JustJoshinYa on May 26, 2011 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Not so hasty, JJY. First...
we need to hold a hearing on the matter of adding the proposed WTF. Second, the hearing has been postponed in order to give to all parties concerned reasonable time to prepare for such hearing and to guarantee the participation in person of witnesses and experts. WTFs added now might well be stripped at a later date.
Providing you can submit the necessary paperwork to the PDC WTF subcommittee who oversees these matters before they leave on their annual summer holiday.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
made me smile.
(I’ve had a WAY crappy week, so that was good – thanks)
by JustJoshinYa on May 26, 2011 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm one of the subcommittee members that votes on these matters
I will be out of the office, but if you intend to file for a “WTF addition” to your comment, I will inform the other committee members that you have my backing.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
Where do we send the bottle of scotch
(excuse me, Irish whiskey)
"luckily for me i was born with an extremely high hemassholecrit level. no pills needed." -ant1
It's just that one of the parties involved
needs to prepare for a race in France before they can commit to the hearings and another has to proceed with civil prosecution against various former pro-cyclists for things they may have said to the press.
Sometimes I take comfort in the fact that there is a parallel universe in which I'm winning both versions of VDS.
AC vs AS is on
woohoo.
(sure, it probably won’t count, but I’ll take it over AS vs Basso and Evans)
You can't spell epic without Giro
Has this been determined? I have seen in a few places the theory that even if CAS wins, the ban wouldn’t be backdated, since it’s the UCI appealing a ruling and not the rider appealing the ruling.
Anyone know?
It seems to me a fairly important nuance.
moo
with very little info or expertise
i’m afraid that that’s how it’s going to go. he has the go ahead to race now. he’s not provisionally suspended. his case was ruled on by his federation and the said no foul. i bet he doesn’t lose these results.
"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."
but i guess
if he loses the eventual hearing he’ll lose the 2010 tour. And i suppose suspension would start from the time of the hearing.
possibly
but i’m not yet convinced. he was told by his federation that he could ride, that there was no valid (or whatever) positive in the Tour. seems kind of unfair to tell him he’s clear to ride, and then take the results away. but we’ll see.
"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 think we're agreeing
if they find against him, they’re bound to take away the 2010 tour win since that’s where the pos came from. But they could let him keep anything between that and the eventual hearing. Assuming they suspend him – if they let him keep old results, then seems like the new suspension would start after the hearing (the future cas hearing). If they strip old results i guess the suspension would start from 2010 tdf. So who’s on first?
I just assumed it will based off AV
but quite frankly I’d find it more fair to keep his wins, suspend him two years from the point they decide and move on with it. He never did miss any races after all.
You can't spell epic without Giro
Valverde was suspended
and appealing his suspension while riding.
Contador is NOT suspended and it is UCI and WADA who are appealing.
I might add
That this system is an absurdity, but I said this all before.
If a rider is permitted to ride, then his results should be permitted.
Either do not permit the riding or permit the riding with the results standing.
Absolutely
it’s a loophole in the system, which is not the riders fault. If he is legally allowed to race and wins then those need to stand.
You can't spell epic without Giro
UCI has signed the WADA code
By having a UCI licence, the rider has agreed to the terms.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on May 26, 2011 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I know
I’m criticizing the terms imposed by WADA.
They are absurd.
Can't say I agree
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on May 26, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Yoiu do not find it absurd
that a rider is permitted by rule to participate in a sporting event and even if he complies with the rules in that event, his results can be stripped?
I guess we have a different definition of absurd.
Do I have to whip out the latin again?
De gustibus, etc.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on May 26, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
About taste, yes
Whether or not the WADA code is absurd is such a question.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on May 26, 2011 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
About anything
not just the WADA Code.
Other than discussions of whether the sky is blue and such.
I'm a firm non-believer of the existence of objective value
But to present my view, in your example above, that said rider was apparently not that interested in complying with the rules after all if he’s found to be a doper. You cannot chose for yourself in what events you want to play by the rules, and you can be viewed as a cheater until you have served the suspension.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on May 26, 2011 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Uh oh, you've done it now, BTD.
It gets hairy whenever he whips out the “latin”.
For me it's both.
It’s completely stupid to go back and strip results (that I agree with, and it was especially stupid when they wanted to strip 6 years of results from Valverde)
However, I do understand the desire to make the suspension applicable from the date of the violation, if the suspension is upheld.
Unfortunately, those two items cause a complete and total farce.
Sorry
But that does not make sense to me.
Sit the rider down until the appeals process is over (and thus make it expedited – must be done in say, 4-6 months) or let them ride while the appeals process is ongoing and let the results stand (again this means move quick to me).
But let him ride and then strip the results? Nonsensical.
I did not mean to imply
you said it, though I can see how what I wrote might give that impression.
I think you are correct in what WADA’s rationale is – my view is that WADA’s rationale is absurd.
Not that anything you have argued is absurd.
I should also add
that when I say “strip results” that means legit wins that there is no proof that cheating helped attain. Like Valverde’s Vuelta (since we’re talking about Valverde)
However, I think if there is evidence the the results were attained WITH cheating, like a later admission, a la Riis… then the win SHOULD be stripped.
If they went back and striped all of Lance’s “wins” (now losses) I would be fine with it. We now know he didn’t win them according to the rules in the first place… he should not keep them now.
but
this Giro right now, for Bert, we have no idea if he is as pure as the driven snow… so it should be honoured, unfortunately, the process is so royally screwing the whole period up.
I think, a suspension should be resolved before your next event, but that’s unrealistic of the courts.
I was going to post this exact same comment, DAMN YOU!!!
But seriously, if AC rides Le Tour and wins, it should stand. Isn’t it just as wrong to award another rider the win at another time and deprive him of all the accolades? Winning without actually winning can’t be any good.
Focus on easy first. If that's all you get, that ain't half bad - Caballo Blanco
Correct me if I'm wrong
but I thought that Valverde wasn’t suspended and was riding.
Then he got suspended in Italy, and was still riding everywhere else, while everyone decided if they wanted it to ‘go global’
Then it went global, he was suspended, and he appealed while still riding.
And then was finally suspended (although he never tested ‘positive’ in a race like AC, technically, but did have blood bags/DNA matched to him later)
He was suspended by the Italian Federation
and was riding and appealed that suspension.
He was not “finally suspended,” his appeal of his suspension was rejected by CAS and then he could no longer ride as he had exhausted his appeals.
The point is Valverde was the person appealing. In this case, it is the UCI and WADA who are appealing.
Not quite there yet.
The case under which Valverde was ultimately suspended was brought by the UCI and WADA against the Spanish federation, for not banning (or even opening a case against) Valverde.
He was suspended
by the Italian Federation and UCI and WADA appealed the Spanish Federation’s decision to not suspend Valverde.
No federation has suspended Contador.
FTR, most of Valverde’s results were not stripped.
The date of Valverde's suspension
was set for January 31, 2010 because he delayed a CAS hearing scheduled for October 2009.
I assume that this delay will not be attributed to Contador.
Right
but ultimately, it was the UCI that suspended Valverde, with the legal ruling of the CAS in their pocket, allowing them to go over the Spanish Fed.
What the CAS didn’t allow was the stripping of all the results going back to May 21( 24?), 2004 because they said there was no proof those results were achieved using doping.
Valverde was only suspended in Italy, on threat of police action (which he thought was unfair… and by the rules it kinda is) The Spanish federation wouldn’t suspend him, so the UCI appealed to the CAS.
That is similar with AC. The Spanish fed won’t suspend AC, so the UCI has stepped in.
However, Valverde’s violation was much more damning that AC’s IMHO. The way the UCI handled it was screwed, but, he deserved his suspension. With AC, I’m not AS convinced.
UCI could have suspended
solely on Italian Fed’s action.
Is this true?
I didn’t know this, and if you have a source I could read I would like to.
I always operated under the idea that the individual federations have jurisdiction over their own riders and no other federations have that power. This was after all, one of Valverde’s prime complaints, that the process was violating his human rights to be tried domestically.
I thought the only action remaining for the UCI was to appeal if they believed the Federations ruling was not just.
I believe so
Articles 247 and 248 in particular.
247
Provisional Suspension regarding a License-Holder who may be referred or has been referred to his
National Federation according to article 203, shall be governed by articles 235 to 240.
Provisional measures regarding such License-Holder shall be governed by the rules of the National
Federation.
Am I reading that legalese wrong? It reads to me that they are talking about one’s own domestic federation. I think only your own federation has jurisdiction.
I, do as the challenger of said description, reserve the right and all rights to be wrong, under the statute of limitations of one’s own personal comprehension of said facts and descriptions outlined therein.
248 just says you’re banned.
I disagree with you
Any federation findings of suspension lead to provisional suspension under the UCI rules.
Read 203 so you can see that not all issues are referred to the national federation.
Indeed, the KEY finding of the CAS decision on the Italian Federation’s action was precisely that – that the Italian Federation had jurisdiction to review Valverde.
Valverde argued that only the Spanish Federation had jurisdiction.
Interestngly
UCI had the power to impose a global ban based on the Italian Federation’s action and indeed that is what they did, once CAS upheld the Italian Federation and rejected Valverde’s appeal.
I think UCI’s ban was based on the rejectionj of Valverde’s appeal.
So I disagree with you..
What exactly are you disagreeing with? The facts?
CAS press release when it (not the UCI) imposed the ban on Valverde
Hmm
It seems you want to separate this CAS decision from the one they rendered in March upholding the Italian Federation ban.
FTR, the UCI/WADA appeal of the Spanish Federation’s decision to not open disciplinary hearings (it was based on Spanish law not permitting them or something like that, not on the merits) predated the Valverde appeal of the Italian Federation ban.
UCI and WADA wanted to have the issue of the worldwide ban decided in the appeal of the Italian Federation hearing but the CAS appeal panel said that due to the pendency of the UCI/WADA appeal against the Spanish Federation, it would address that issue in that proceeding.
When CAS decided against Valverde’s appeal against the Italian Federation, the decision on the imposition of the worldwide ban was a mere formality.
The issue was decided in the CAS decision on the Italian Federation’s ban of Valverde.
Those are facts too.
Google is your friend, dude.
With a little time and effort, perhaps you’ll get it straight eventually.
Um what?
CAS did not uphold the Italian Federation ban and that was not the basis of the worldwide ban?
Google told you that?
I always know when someone does not know what they are talking about – the tell tale sign is the line “Google is your friend.”
I think I lost the plot; what are you arguing against?
From majope’s first link:
31 May 2010 […] the CAS has imposed a two-year ban on Alejandro Valverde starting on 1 January 2010 but has denied the request of the UCI and WADA that results obtained by the athlete prior to the beginning of the suspension be annulled.
and
On 11 May 2009, the CONI Anti- Doping Tribunal (TNA) ruled that Mr Valverde […] was banned for two years from participating in events organised under the auspices of CONI or related national sports organisations in Italy. Mr Valverde appealed the TNA decision to the CAS and, on 16 March 2010, the CAS confirmed the two year ban.
there is an important difference
Valv was a blood bag hanging in a cupboard – CAS were asked to set a date of suspension ultimately. AC is a failed in comp test. Affects the date of sentencing considerably.
But if AC found against then the substantive point remains – he will lose the Tour and everything post tour.
Huh
The existence of an AAF on a specific date is a significant difference between the two cases and gives TAS less leeway in determining when a potential sanction would begin and end.
My understanding of the rules is that you are correct: Contador would in fact lose all his results between the date of the AAF and the TAS decision.
I say all that knowing that often in practice these things turn out far differently than we anticipate, since there’s sometimes a different between the rules as written and the rules as interpreted by the TAS.
Indeed
Everyone seems to have lost the plot.. What was the basis of the May 31, 2010 decision?
It was CAS’ MARCH 31, 2010 decision upholding the Italian Federation ban.
There was no proceeding to uphold in the Spanish Federation case as the Spanish Federation never opened up[ a case.
But for the Italian Federation case, CAS would have no findings on which to base a suspension.
Instead the decision would have been to order the Spanish Federation to open an investigation.
This is all pretty simple, maybe for lawyers only I guess.
Google is my friend
A little late with the civility lectures no?
Excuse me
See here
Google is your friend, dude.
With a little time and effort, perhaps you’ll get it straight eventually.
16 March, you mean?
But I repeat: what are you arguing against, what exactly is not true, what other info did you see? “16 March 2010, the CAS confirmed the two year ban” only refers to the Italian ban. “31 May 2010 […] the CAS has imposed a two-year ban on Alejandro Valverde” was in the UCI/WADA appeal.
Imposed a 2 year suspension
based on the findings in what proceeding? And who appealed that proceeding?
My point is that Valverde appealed the decision that formed the basis of his worldwide suspension – the Italian Federation decision.
Contador is not appealing anything – it is UCI and WADA who are appealing.
Their situations are not the same.
My point is that Valverde appealed the decision that formed the basis of his worldwide suspension – the Italian Federation decision.
But that is just it: the Italian ban could have formed the basis for a world-wide suspension but somehow UCI or WADA or whoever dragged their feet on that. It did not happen, it did not form the basis of his world-wide suspension (although I’m sure it contributed). I quoted it two times already: “CAS has imposed a two-year ban on Alejandro Valverde” was in the 31 May 2010 decision of the UCI/WADA appeal against the Spanish federation and Valverde.
The decision that banned Valverde
is here
The 2007 decision of the RFEC not to impose sanctions on Valv was deemed incorrect, was overturned, and he was banned.
The Italian case was nothing but evidence – hence the panels request in the preliminaries that the party’s answer the questions posed on page 10.
WADA Code
10.8 Disqualification of Results in Competitions Subsequent to Sample Collection or Commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results), all other competitive results obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping rule violation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
10.9 Commencement of Ineligibility Period Except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Any period of Provisional Suspension (whether imposed or voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility imposed.
one of the provisions is
10.9.1 Delays Not Attributable to the Athlete or other Person Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Athlete or other Person, the body imposing the sanction may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier date commencing as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on which another antidoping rule violation last occurred.
Perhaps there’s something in the Code that says it depends on who’s appealing, but I don’t know. And I sort of doubt it’s true.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on May 26, 2011 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
"May" is a powerful qualifier
But let’s be clear, the point here is Contador is riding as the rules permit.
If you do not want the results, do not permit the riding.
WADA’s rule is absurd, simply absurd.
BTW
I could the lawyer the hell out of that language to demonstrate how Contador’s results are not subject to “disqualification” in that he has never ridden while “provisionally suspended” – he only rode after the Spanish Federation cleared him.
But I understand that my argument is not WADA’s interpretation. But suppose Contador went to CAS to fight it? I think he would have a good chance of winning.
But the rule is the problem imo.
The result of the tour will go, even if he wins at CAS
Strict liability rules, he’s fighting to be let back in/remain in the sport, not keep the result.
To expand
No one is arguing the Clenbuterol isn’t there, just about how it came to be there.
The strict liability for the Clen leads to the result being lost. The construct of the rules is that failed test = ban. But they contain a much litigated get out – that the length of any ban can be whittled down to nothing under the no fault clauses, or reduced by the same. To benefit from the get out certain conditions must be met (establishing etc).
The farcical part of the RRFC decision is not that it cleared AC but that it failed to take the Tour result off him. It had to appealed for that reason alone really,
Their decisions on all the other aspects of the case pretty much followed the law.
The findings of fact they made on establishing and most likely reason for the Clen’s prescence were theirs to make, and make them they certainly did, quite properly as per the rules based on their findings of fact.
It has always seemd a little odd how they managed to get the legal aspects of that correct yet never nullified the result.
CAS is unlikely to find that any results since the date of the test should be kept by AC if they deem him to be at fault and worthy of a ban. The rules are pretty unequivocal,
For fairness to require otherwise (and AC keep any subsequent results) then the CAS must find it more fair that someone it has decided has failed a drug test (and hence is a “doper”) to be allowed to keep the results of races he then rode whilst being a “doper” . Determination of what is fair and just must also take into account the interests of any clean riders AC has raced against in that period, and then place their interests below AC’s. All the lawyering in the world is unlikely to change CAS’s mind in that respect I’d imagine.
i can't argue with you
over what CAS will do or what the exact rules are but i disagree with a couple of notions there. For one it seems ridiculous to have a zero threshold for something found in meat. That’s just asking for trouble. Secondly i don’t agree with the rationale that contador, riding races now, should be considered as a doper (as far as keeping his results go). He’s being tested like everyone else. He would only be a doper in the same way that someone who has served their doping suspension is a doper. Yes they’re a doper, but yes they’re allowed to ride, be tested and should be allowed to keep results if they win and don’t test positive during those races.
Again, not expressing an opinion on what CAS will do, just what i think about them doing what you’ve listed there.
well for all my pretence at knowing the rules
these things are many and varied, and not always as presumed. If found against then AC has some hope from the Valjavec ruling, which only stripped him of the results between set dates. Other cases say all the results will go. That it was an in competition test leads to my presumption of a harsh view of things being taken by CAS.
It has to be said though that all races he currently takes part in, he races as “innocent (but under appeal)”. He gets to compete cause he is currently deemed innocent, and if he is cleared by the higher court too then it is arguably only fair he was allowed to ply his trade in the interim.
If he is found against then the “he should never have been there in the first place” argument is pretty persuasive when viewed in light of the impact of his prescence on the other competitors. It would be like rewarding him for having been scared into being clean from his recent (and unsuccessful for him) run in with the law.
He has chosen to exercise his right to cycle on whilst the case is processed. He may have to live with the consequences of that decision.
(Adding, unlike many, I have much enjoyed his romp around Italy pulverising the opposition, have more conviction than doubt it is currently being done clean, and still think he has some chance of being cleared)
This is wrong imo
The suspension runs for 2 years (hypothetically,) The 2 years (and he has already served some 6 months of that) can run at anytime.
Indeed, Valverde raced for years while his process took place and no results were stripped except for the last few months because the proceeding was delayed (a ridiculous rationale BTW.)
It seems clear to me that CAS can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants.
This system is pretty much of a joke imo.
Go back and check the Valverde decision.
Valverde lost more results than simply the “last few months.”
Hmm
“the CAS considered that there was no evidence that any of the results obtained by Mr Valverde prior to 1 January 2010 was through doping infraction and decided appellants’ request to annul those results should be denied.”
Link.
Valverde was a unique set of circumstances
and is best disregarded when looking for precedent on “sentencing”.
The decision was about a blood bag, many months/years old, that was eventually matched to his dna in another country, had a whole load of due process to it, and eventually CAS – having satisfied themself the blood bag was his and it was legally appropriate to use it to establish a doping offence – were left scraping around for a date to draw a line, and set in motion a ban. The picked a date, then they disqualified all results after the line they drew in the sand.
The line is a lot easier to draw in this case – it is the date of the positive test.
The ban will start, if found against, most likely from the date of the hearing. (Particularly as AC has decided to ride again) He will get time off for the length of the provisional suspension and that will be that. His results will almost certainly go from the date of the positive – remembering to find against him CAS need to decide he is a cheat, and thus has been an unpunished cheat from that day to this.
This seems incorrect to me
First, the main point – CAS need not find that Contador was a cheat – rather they need only find that he did not meet his burden (or UCI met its burden) on the balance of the probabilities.
Second, there is much room to find against Contador but also reduce penalties (including results after?).
I think CAS can do just about anything it wants to do in this case.
At this point there are precedents that would allow complete exoneration and precedents that permit completely dropping the hammer.
Predicting what CAS will do here based on “precedents” hell, even the rules, is a fool’s errand, imo.
They can do anything they want to do imo.
Nope - it's a court apllying the same rules to AC it should apply to any other athlete
Just the other month a full description of many of the issues in the AC case got an airing in the case of a wheelchair basketball athlete. Case after case after case have failed under the no fault rules, few succeed under no significant fault either. Plenty of notice is taken of the rules, and the precedent.
To obtain any relief (no or reduced ban), you must first establish how the substance came to be in the sample. The relief is conditional. Everything starts and ends with that test.
To pass the test the tribunal must be satisfied with your explanation of accidental contamination being the most likely, above and to the exclusion of the other possibilities. To fail this test the tribunal finds it more likely the substance is there because you took it somehow – or put another way they find it most likely you cheated.
woohoo +2
nice lineup for the tour. Although i admit i was kind of looking forward to seeing if someone could beat schleck. Evans or Gesink or S Sanchez maybe. Or even Basso perhaps. But how often do we get to see a serious contender for the double?
Is there anything they can do? It's not like they can take out Saxo
plus the storyline=$$$ and we are talking about the Tour
You can't spell epic without Giro
yeah i think they can
no idea whether they would or not. But remember them not inviting Astana the year after vino tested positive in the tour – and vino wasn’t even riding if i remember correctly.
I now want the Triple by AC :)
How glorious would it be? Win the 3 GT in one year, and have them all stripped by CAS in October? Cycling, what a great sport ! Glory and intrigue all wrapped together in a wonderful, if bitter, energy bar…
by FrenchKheldar on May 26, 2011 10:39 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
that would be all sorts of awesome.
"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."
fantastic comment
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on May 26, 2011 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
wish i'd taken ac in vds now
two grand tours add up to some points.
"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."
plus he's held all those jerseys
for so long – he must be rackin em up. Won some small races before too.
Can they not schedule the hearing for during the tour
Thus still keeping him out?
presumably they could have, but they didn't.
"luckily for me i was born with an extremely high hemassholecrit level. no pills needed." -ant1
Reports saying it was agreed by all concerned
I’m confused by that – if I were UCI, I’d have fought that one, big time
by Sarah Connolly on May 26, 2011 11:14 AM EDT reply actions
some lab got a new centrifuge
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist has a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on May 26, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
"past the start date" - yep - could make for an interesting tour.
think: sideshow
by JustJoshinYa on May 26, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
What?
You don’t want them to pull a Rabobank…. wait to see if the guy in question is winning and then once it looks certain say “Oh …. shit… we better do something about this, NOW! Somebody fire him!”
Wouldn’t that be poetic?…. Contador’s first Tour given, his fourth be taken away.
His lawyers say "it's a complicated case.."
really? wow. I should have gone to law school. It’s an insult to real lawyers everywhere.
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist has a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on May 26, 2011 12:55 PM EDT reply actions
This is a very complicated case . . . . You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, lotta strands. . . .
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
I hope you've been following a strict regimen of thai stick and caucasians
Sea Otter Classics (tm c R I’ll fucking sue you)
hopefully with a few more in-outs he'll just go get f***ed
Anyone who has every thought a working Photojournalist has a glam job needs to rethink...
by Christopher See on May 26, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Can't Prudhomme just say AC isn't welcome?
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
he could
i’m not sure the ensuing trouble would be worth it though. it could create a Boonen like courts battle, or reignite power plays with the uci. but given that ac did test positive at last year’s race, i wouldn’t hold it against Prudhomme to take a stand.
"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."
Yes that and the ensuing trouble def wouldn't be worth it.
"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton
technically yes (afaik)
but i take it to mean they can’t tell QS not to come, but they could maybe pressure QS into not bringing him. let the team in but not the rider. not sure how they could be successful, but they could try.
"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."
UCI rules 2.2.010 bis
The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one
of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of
the event.
If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision taken in
this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport which
must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period. However, in the case of the Tour de France,
the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport [Sports Arbitration Chamber]
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on May 26, 2011 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
this is why
Organisers need the right to strike out a result after the race.
Lets say there’s a rider with a dodgy past, who tested positive and caused much embarrassment in the last run of your race applies to be in the same race again this year.
The details around their dope test is still being discussed with CAS.
Looking at the potential damage to the credibility of the race you say ‘non’. The rider appeals to a higher body and forces you to allow their entry. The rider then wins your race.
A week later CAS win their appeal and it turns out you let a convicted doper win.
Of course you should be able to strike that result out.
So what's the general feeling around here?
I have to admit I follow a bunch of handegg, hockey, baseball, and college basketbounce during the non-GT season, so I haven’t been keeping such close tabs on the Contador situation.
Do most people think he did it? Should he be suspended? Only one of the above?
Do people think he’s done it his whole career/still doing it?
Just curious what the average forum member thinks.
Well at least I have 1995, 2000, and 2003. Those were fun.
by dees ees en drama on May 26, 2011 3:50 PM EDT reply actions
I'm not interested in those things
And if you post pictures, I will not look at them
Especially if they are blonde.
Trade Luongo?
Well at least I have 1995, 2000, and 2003. Those were fun.
by dees ees en drama on May 26, 2011 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
That's really funny though
Have you been following the Stanley Cup playoffs much?
Well at least I have 1995, 2000, and 2003. Those were fun.
by dees ees en drama on May 26, 2011 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Mostly Detroit (Lidström)
but the twins a little bit too. I may cheer for the Canucks actively if the Bruins manage to stumble ass-backwards into the final, ’cause they suck ass.
They aren't pretty but we're working on that.
Part of the problem is the system they play. It’s ugly and down tempo and designed to win games 2-1. But they’re my guys and rooting for them I’ll be tonight.
Sea Otter Classics (tm c R I’ll fucking sue you)
Actually, they're quite adept at that game. You just don't happen to like it.
Sea Otter Classics (tm c R I’ll fucking sue you)
What?
No love for Zetterberg, Holmstrom, Franzen, or Kronwall?
As a die-hard Wings fan, I was following the NHL playoffs pretty closely until the Wings were out. Rooting for TB (Yzerman) but otherwise Vancouver.
They're ok
but my hockey interest coincides with Lidström. My interest peaked in the late eighties and first half of the nineties. I watched him dominate in Sweden as a mere kid, win World Championships in a great tournament in Finland 1991 and then was a huge Wings fan during those first seasons.
great player, the NHL won't be the same when he leaves.
I’ll miss him almost as I miss Mats Naslund. Ah, the childhood memories…
The irony is Forsberg is the biggest hero here in Sweden (and Sundin to some extent)
but Lidström has probably achieved as much as those two put together.
He was all class from day 1. He played like a 30 yo veteran back in 1991 when he was 20yo and he was still as good in the last games of the playoffs this year, at age 40. Absolutely phenomenal.
dude by the way
what happened to Swede at IIHF, I tuned out after Canada lost, just now looking at results . . . wha? I mean, I don’t much like that tournament anyways, it’s pick-up hockey without the best players, but very surprised by that score.
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on May 26, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
In a somewhat related note
all the TdF profiles are now available
http://www.letour.fr/2011/TDF/COURSE/us/100/etape_par_etape.html
You can't spell epic without Giro
Hm. For some reason
I thought the ITT would be more climby than it appears to be. Perhaps not like the Nevegal stage we just saw, but I thought it was going to go up to Chamrousse and then back down to Grenoble…
Fwiw
the Dauphine is using the exact same ITT course, so there will be a chance to preview it for some riders. Also is there anyway Gilbert does not pick up yellow with the stage 1 finish?
You can't spell epic without Giro
Looks pretty good for him, doesn't it?
though do we know how steep that little kick-up at the end really is?
from the expert's write-up from the letour site
The road rises in such a straight line that even from the bottom the finish is almost visible…What is for sure is that there won’t be any sprinters in contention. Look instead for riders in the mould of Philippe Gilbert or Thomas Voeckler.
"Wizard's first rule. People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true." -- Terry Goodkind
Should be a great battle between these 2 the first week
Stage 4 also looks almost Giro-esque !
by FrenchKheldar on May 26, 2011 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Even stage 6 doesn't look handwrapped for the sprinters
Good job Prudhomme and co !
by FrenchKheldar on May 26, 2011 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
So Andy finishes bridesmaid to Alberto once again.....
then suddenly in October he is Two time TDF champion???? strange place this cycling world is/could be.
I think, on careful consideration, that I hope the TdF says F You No.
Especially given that nearly ever other rider who’s ever gone through this process has sat until it’s concluded (and yes, I know that AC is one of very few to have been acquitted by his fed and have that appealed). But I no longer care about the Giro b/c I have no sense that I’m watching something ‘real’ in terms of what the final results will eventually be, and it’s supremely hard to give a shit. I’d feel the same way about the Tour. This case needs to be resolved. That, or I’m just going to stop giving a flying fuck about grand tours altogether.
Kinda right .....
Look I reckon its more to do with the fact that ASO (thats the mob who runs the TDF isnt it ?) anyway i think that they should not let AC and or saxo bank start !!!! just like they did with AC and ASTANA in 08 ? what do you think, it would be the best thing for the sports and the races image, But i agree with you in regards to this Giro.. it stinks AC is a cheat i dont care what he says he is dirty and should take a long holiday….how in a race that is so hard with such stupidly long and constant climbing stages… with all that how can 1 guy be 5min up ??? when the rest of the main GC guys are with in about 1 to 2 or so min…. its giving me the shits a race that could have given us some of the old fashion hard man stuff of guys just digging in and doing it tough… AC is doing it like a sunday stroll and it STINKS !!!! KICK HIM OUT !!!! the only reason he is in now is that the spanish Press got involved… that shouldnt happen… thats enough of my rant anyone got anything else to add ?
Do or Do not there is no try..... master yoda !!!! (star wars)
Actually...
…all I meant was that with the process hanging over it, we don’t know what the final result will be said to be. I’m not judging AC beyond that process. But I think that uncertainty really makes it hard for me to invest in the race.
To be fair
as much as I like the Giro, the level of competition in this one, frankly, isn’t what it’ll be in the TdF. Nibali? Scarponi? Kreuzinger? All very good riders, but none of them are really at the level of a Schleck, Evans, or Basso. Except for Menchov, nobody else in this race has ever even finished on the podium in the TdF, IIRC, and this isn’t really a course that suits Menchov (I got the distinct impression that the only reason he’s here is that Geox wasn’t invited to the TdF). Aside from Menchov, the highest place rider last year in the TdF who’s riding in this year’s Giro was JRod, who finished ~11 minutes behind Schleck.
I imagine Schleck would be doing much the same thing if he was here instead of Contador. So, the 5 minute thing doesn’t really disturb or surprise me.
Sastre doesn't appear to be "racing" at this Giro but indeed he is present. And with a TdF podium or two to his credit.
Sign seen at entrance of local bike shop, " \o/ spoken here.". - Okay, I made it up, but wouldn't that be cool?
Forgot about him
but you’re correct. Any idea why he doesn’t appear to be racing, so to speak? But I doubt Sastre at his peak would be able to hang with Andy now…
Don't disagree on the physical
but on the psychological side of things, Sastre has A Scleck beaten, and how (Helps that C Sastre really wants to win, IMHO)
by Sarah Connolly on May 27, 2011 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Well A Schleck needs to learn how to beat the Americans in California first
We still haven’t seen him stomp anybody anywhere in a stage race, but I grant you that the Giro field is a little disappointing.
by FrenchKheldar on May 28, 2011 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Here is how I think this will play out.
1. Contador will be found to have accidentally ingested Clen.
2. He will still be suspended for one year.
3. His 2010 Tour will be stripped.
4. He has already sat out for approx. 6 months (time of initial notification – clearance by his Fed.)
5. He will only need to serve an additional 6 mos.
6. He will keep all results since given the ok to ride by his Fed.
7. He will ride the 2011 Tour.
8. He will stop riding after the Tour until CAS makes final determination (Sept.)
9. He will be free to ride by as early as Spring 2012, since his total time served will equal 1 yr.
You read it here first.
Twitter username: FitTechEric
Shane Stokes has an article
at Velonation, with some interesting stuff.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
Basic fair play would seem to suggest
The time has come for Contador to finish the race he is riding, and get off his bike. It’s not about the rights and wrongs of his doping case, or to impugn his character, or cast doubt on his integrity, or demean his marvellous ride at the Giro, or question its validity.
But when you delay a court case about your right to ride in races, even for the best and most justifiable of reasons, the quid pro quo should be you stop riding in races in acknowledgement of the largesse shown in granting you a delay to proceedings.
Contador should just announce as such and be done with it. He’s lost the chance to spin it as such.
I think the issue is
that he and Riis don’t see this as an unfinished process. In their minds he has been cleared and it’s not their problem that someone has appealed the verdict.
yep
You’ve nailed it here, I think. Also, I’m remembering a story from the time of Puerto. Basso was named in Puerto, but there was no sanction. At the time, there was reportedly a screaming match between Riis and McQuaid over the UCI’s pressure on the team to withdraw Basso from competition. I think this was around the time of Giro di Lombardia. Riis argued that there was no sanction, and I think at that point, not even a formal investigation from CONI. He was opposed to the idea that Basso could not race. So, it does not at all surprise me that he will continue to race Contador until the final TAS decision.
I think you're right on all the principles...
…but as I said above, the practical effect of this on the sport sucks.
but the someone is Alberto
He has now delayed his own case. To ride on is to play the system, not to abide by it.
CAS agrees that it gives him a fairer chance to prepare
via Velonation link a few comments up. So at face value, it does not seem like a play.
I dont read it as a play particularly either
but its about appearances. To look honourable its time to finish the race and dismount. (Riis continuing on regardless would also be a huge disappointment and not without risk)
I'm not saying it's right or a good thing, just that I think that is their view
This is why I think they see a delay as unproblematic. He is cleared , there is no reason he shouldn’t race the Giro or Tour. They have no interest in a quick decision. It’s not their problem.
never thought you were ftr
my incredulity is aimed fairly (i think) and squarely at Contador and Riis. Can’t believe anyone thinks it’s a good idea for him to ride on post giro, let alone that those two do.
(Also would change my above comment thus – not about looking honourable – is about being honourable)
Summary:
Danish Tour de France preview magazine told by ASO to not put Contador on the cover. Speculation that it is because ASO has already decided to exclude him. Alternative suggestion that they want to wait what CAS/TAS says.
I think the latter
they have no idea but since these things go to print early they would rather be safe than sorry and since there isn’t exactly a shortage of good photos from the Tour, why chance it?
It is interesting that they are thinking along these lines though. Of course, somewhere in a box I have TdF preview issues of CycleSport & Procycling from 2006 that both have Ullrich vs. Basso as the theme on the frontpage and they make for a pretty good case why you would do as ASO does.
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
