Interesting interview with Cancellara
I lost quite a bit for Cancellara when he broke the contract with Riis, but with this interview and an interview he gave to a Spanish journo where he states that he will not ride the TdF this year but focus on the Olympics (he has done enough of babysitting the Schlecks) he gains a few plus points on my list ;)
4 months ago
LittleOldLady
31 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Yeah.... wow.
So, the anti-doping efforts in cycling are to ensure a level playing field. To ensure no one is defrauded from a win.
You’ve got Cancellara, Schleck, Scarponi, Merckx and many others saying variations of they believed Contador was innocent or that something doesn’t add up. That the decision makes you lose faith. Or the punishment doesn’t fit the “crime”
So, are the anti-doping efforts effective? Are they accomplishing what they hope to accomplish?
I dunno. I don’t think so.
I also don’t think they are accomplishing what they hope to accomplish.
Banning a rider for two years for something CAS says more or less says is an accident is wrong, and that is true whether the rider is Contador or Li, whether he is a high profil or a domestic.
In all media and in the minds of casual fans this goes down as a doping sin, and even the top guy at WADA calls those riders cheats.
But at least for me there are a difference, a rider that cheats and knowingly takes performance enhancing drugs is not the same as a rider who without knowing it accidental eat something that does not help him in any way to win a race.
It hurts the sport that there are no differences in these cases.
by LittleOldLady on Feb 10, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
I took that as a "you may save face" statement.
After all, they don’t have traces of it anywhere. But at the level that Contador is riding, there should be no mystery supplements either, and nothing that he takes that they don’t keep a batch number (or the actual bottle), IMHO. Others have gotten lighter bans because “it was in a supplement” was NOT hypothetical. Or because they themselves made the “it must have been in the supplement” argument right away, instead of first talking about beef for weeks, during which any chance of tracking a tainted supplement disappeared.
"It is unfortunate that the Wall is not plugged in correctly."
there is a step in the rules that exists before going onto discuss
whether or not the amount of the drug found is relevant – namely how did it get there? This step has previously been found to be fair and proportionate (see e.g., CAS re gibbs).
If contador had won that argument he would have got off under no fault or had a lower sentence under no sig fault at worst. But the Code requires establishment of how it got there first. It may be guilty until proved innocent, but has been regualarly found to be OK to be such.
The first step of the process – how it gets there – is the first test to pass before the amount of the drug found and its effects are relevant.
It is important to remember that one of the few ways such a small quantity of the banned drug found could have been there was from blood doping (and if so it renders the amount of the banned drug found irrelevant as he would have been chock full of red blood cells that were helping him) as well as to remember he could just be an innocent victim of contaminated meat/supplement ingestion.
The panels decision was never to establish how it got there, rather to weigh the evidence and produce, in effect, bookmakers odds re likelihood. Even a finding for the meat route wouldn’t have meant it wasn’t blood doping in reality, just greater odds of one than the other.
The panel would, at best, never have established he never cheated, just that they didn’t believe he did.
I do understand the rules and how the CAS works.
What I am trying to say is that to the broad public this is seen as yet another top cyclist caught doping with a performance enhancing drug that made him win all the races.
But that is not what this case had said, yes he ad a small amount of a forbidden drug in his body, and yes no one can explain how it got there, and yes this small amount in it self did not have any performance enhancing effect, and yes as the rules are he must be banned.
To me it does not do any good for the sport to say that one of its greatest athletes is a doping cheat when that has not been established as a fact, if it could have been proven that he had got the stuff from blood-doping then it would have been OK to hang him out as a cheater, but when that was not proved then it is a big disfavour to both him and the sport to do so.
To me the sport would be better served if the rules allowed for different punishments, so that the real doping sinners got severed punished and those where you can not prove that they cheated and where accidents must be accepted as an explanation for a positive test get lesser or no punishment.
by LittleOldLady on Feb 13, 2012 5:50 AM EST up reply actions
I feel a need to elaborate a little about my point of view.
What I feel Cancellara are talking about and the question that I responded to is whether this verdict is good for the sport and imo it is not.
I do not think that the sport is well served in having rules and punishments that differ so great from the rules and punishments that we live with in our every day life.
In normal justice you are innocent until proven guilty – under WADA you are guilty until you prove that you are innocent.
In normal justice we don’t punish the man who make a mistake with the same severity as a shoplifter and we don’t punish the shoplifter with the same severity as the man who commit armed robbery – under WADA we punish the guy who make a mistake and the guy who commit a minor offence with the same severity as the guy who knowingly cheat in a big way to win.
In normal society the man who commit armed robbery get the big headlines, the man who make a mistake or the shoplifter don’t get the big headlines – under the WADA rules the guy with the mistake, the guy with the minor offence and the guy with the big offence get the same big headlines, no one differentiate and the sport is deemed riddled with doping sinners and impossible to win without dope.
IMO the WADA rules are unfair to the riders, the fans, the teams, the organizers of the races and the sponsors. I don’t think no one is served with having rules that differ so much from society’s general rules and conception of what is right and wrong.
Now you may think that I am OK with doping, I am NOT. If it can be proven without doubt that a rider has doped (EPO / blood-doping, the heavy stuff) I think he should be banned for life, I think minor offences should be punished with minor punishments and mistakes should be punished with a warning or something like that. I also think that minor offences and mistakes should be dealt with without the authorities blowing in the trumpets and announce for the whole world that they have caught yet another doper when in fact they have not.
by LittleOldLady on Feb 13, 2012 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
"under WADA you are guilty until you prove that you are innocent"
That’s not how it works. Every athlete is seen as innocent, until they test positive, and it’s up to the UCI or anti-doping organizations to prove that a rider. That’s why they perform tests. If the athlete test positive it’s up to the athlete to show there’s a good reason to why the substance was found. That’s not at all different to how we deal with things in normal life. It’s up the authorities to prove that I speed, and if I get caught it’s up to me prove that I had a good reason. Saying that I need to get to the hospital as fast as possible might get me off, saying that I was chased by a bunch of beefed up dinosaurs might not.
As for the mistake, we still don’t know if it was a mistake since we don’t know how the clenbuterol got there. Anyway, there are, as I said, ways for the athlete to get a reduced suspension. But it’s up to the athlete to argue his case. In some cases, the athlete can get a tougher sentence if there are “aggravating circumstances.” And it’s up to the anti-doping orgs to prove that the athlete should get a longer suspension.
The WADA rules says nothing – of course – about the headlines that the athlete receive. Some of them gets no attention, and some get a lot. And it’s mainly the athlete’s fame that decides who gets what. Just as is it in the so called normal society.
As I see it, there are no big differences between WADA’s rules and the rest of the society.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Feb 13, 2012 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
So do you think it is a fair and good system that punish Li with a 2 year ban for a clen-beaf from China and let the Danish rider (I have forgotten his name) go free for a clen-beaf from Mexico?
by LittleOldLady on Feb 13, 2012 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure why you ask that question
nothing in my reply implies that I do, I didn’t even realize that it was a topic. No, it’s not fair that Philip Nielsen got off while Fuyu Li didn’t. It is, I think, unfortunate that Li’s case occurred before Contador’s and the table-tennis player Ovtcharov’s since both raised the issue of clenbuterol in meat. Especially Ovtcharov who tested positive after a visit to China, and presumably it would have been a good guess in Li’s case too.
But I still believe they have to argue their cases, and in that regard I have no idea what happened to Li.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Feb 13, 2012 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, and about the speeding thing, do you get the same punishment if you are 1 km over the speed limit as if you are say 50 km over the speed limit, do the normal life differentiate here or not?
by LittleOldLady on Feb 13, 2012 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, it's a difference, but
should we really have the same system when it comes to doping? Either you have a banned substance in your body, or you don’t. Different suspensions based on the amount found opens up a can of worms.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Feb 13, 2012 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
As I have stated I think that the rules should be changed so they are more in accordance with the justice in the real world.
I have said nothing about different suspensions based on the amount found, but about different punishment based on the type of drug used, when proved that there was a drug used with the intend to dope.
I am not so well in to the different drugs, but have an idea about that there must be different kinds, with some more potent than others, if I am wrong in assuming that, then that is OK and the point about different punishment for different drugs is moot.
by LittleOldLady on Feb 13, 2012 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
Problem is the body is a complex thing
Same drug used by different athletes can have different impact. One drug might do little for A but turn B from donkey to racehorse while another may be the opposite. So my guess is the only way to come close to a fair system is to punish the intent to cheat.
That means in my world that the guy who bought bad drugs and used a placebo when he thought he was getting EPO should get the same punishment as the guy who got super-potent CERA. And while it may not be super super optimal I think the guy who used something “puny” as a banned diet pill or testosteron patches should also get the same punishment. Because the intent was the same and it is virtually impossible to determine who benefitted the most from taking those shortcuts.
I understand what you are saying and I may agree with you, as I said my knowledge about the different drugs is not very big ;)
I also notice that you use the words: “with the intent to cheat” and that is the main thing for me.
What most upset me was actually the top WADA guy who said something like: “all athletes with a positive test that result in a ban are cheaters” (the actual words may have been a little different).
IMO that is so totally wrong and very condemning coming from him, the guy with the highest authority when it comes to doping and bans. What he actually is saying is that Li with the Chinese clen-beaf is a cheater and Philip Nielsen with the Mexican clen-beaf is not. This is just so wrong, if it can not be proven where the stuff came from and thereby not be proven if there was an intent to cheat, then they are not cheaters in my point of view
by LittleOldLady on Feb 14, 2012 7:45 AM EST up reply actions
That is splitting hairs a bit
Maybe we should be saying “doping offender” instead of “cheater”. Because the truth is Li, Contador both committed a doping offense having a banned substance in their system without a sufficient explanation of how it might have got there accidentally. Similarly someone with three wherabouts strikes committed a doping offense as did the guy who took CERA. They are all equally guilty of committing doping offenses, how “innocent” they are we can only speculate.
We will never know if Alex Rasmussen (or Michael) was just absent minded or if he was a calculating cheater and strictly speaking it doesn’t matter either.
I think 'committed' is the problematic word. It implies intent and/or purpose to me.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
how close to the real world?
should there be jail time? should they be prosecuted for fraud if found guilty of doping? should it go on their criminal records and be disclosed to future employers? should they be charged with possession of controlled substances? distribution? what happens to people in the real world when they fail a drug test at work? or if you get caught with cocaine? you mention the “intent to cheat” thing below. in the real world, you get caught with enough cocaine, and you’ll be charged with intent to distribute, whether you were planning on selling it or not.
my view is, in a perfect world where the testers had unlimited budgets and the ability to detect everything, everything wouldn’t have to be so black and white, but given the realities of the system, we can’t afford to live in a world of varying shades of grey (not to mention how different countries would treat greys differently, like china vs. spain for example). strict liability might be a little harsh in some cases but overall, i think it does a pretty good job of being fair to athletes in general, as well to the other stakeholders in sports.
"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."
"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 don't think the test has been validated by wada yet
so the issue will probably be ignored.
"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 just about to post this here. I'm very sympathetic to Contador, but this one made me
stop and think. Birnie’s eloquence is quite persuasive.
"How strange it was to see men doing something beautiful. Something pointless and elegant." Tim Winton, 'Breath'
I give up
The spinning wheels are turning and they all turn in the same direction. Lionel Birnie is a great writer and he explains the whole case in a sober, neutral, matter of fact way – that is to say this is true for the first half of the article, then when the reader has accepted the writer is a good and trustworthy guy he stabs the knife in: Contador is guilty because of the teams he has been on, and in the most genially way he also mentions, actually uses rather much place, the Riis team, and in such a way that it looks as if it had something to do with the case, that way the road is made for the next case: get team Riis out of the WT and make room for a new clean team at the same time we get rid of one of the old dirty teams.
So now we just wait for when Jens!, Cance, Fugly and the Schlecks (and probably a whole lot more) get caught, because by the same logic they must be dirty too, they have spent most / all of their carriers on dirty teams so they can not be clean, they are just dopers who have not been caught yet. I look forward to the article Birnie will write when that happens, it should be easy for him, he just need to change a few names.
This is my last comment, as I said in the beginning: I give up, I have realised that there is nothing to do against the media and the public opinion made by the media, never mind justice and verdicts, never mind whether the rules are good or bad, when the media mill spin we all go in the same direction and agree that it is better to convict 10 innocent than let one guilty get free.
by LittleOldLady on Feb 15, 2012 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
a 1000 dopers have gone free
probably not 100th of that number have been wrongly banned. if anything the system, or its application has been way too lax. the media has nothing to do with the views some of us have on cycling. the festina affair, riis’ admission, hamilton’s admission, the lack of an epo test while half the peloton rode with a 49% hematocrit, fschleck paying a gynecologist for training advice, operation puerto, (and the list goes on and on and on,) have shaped my, and a lot of other fans’, opinion of the dirtiness of the sport. yes, by considering all these facts logically, one can’t help but come to the conclusion that a lot of riders still riding today did so dirty at some point. nobody’s saying ban people through anything other than the established process. but a lot of us have long ago given up on the idea that they deserve the presumption of innocence. if anything, the media has been complicit in hiding the dirtiness of the sport, and the rules have proven inadequate in keeping ped use down. i wouldn’t put a dollar on any successful rider from the nineties having ridden clean the whole time. but that doesn’t mean i can’t enjoy the sport. i just do so without ignoring its tainted history.
"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 like his comments and the interview within that link.
Props for him not reacting immediately but for also expressing a loss of faith. The whole process has been messed up and I would expect it would be hard to have trust if you were a cyclist after witnessing this.
yeah, me too, nice to see a mature comment from him.
by LittleOldLady on Feb 10, 2012 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
I think the comments reflect a fair amount of ignorance
which in some ways is ok. I wouldn’t demand everyone in his position to keep meticulously updated on every legal aspect but then again when you aren’t , saying so is a pretty good idea instead of casting doubt on a process you have little insight into.
As for his snipes at the process that is a bit disappointing. He wouldn’t want people questioning his work, mocking him for “not racing and winning races between April and June, he shouldn’t be taking vacations” . It’s would be ignorant and incorrect .
It doesn't seem anyone is upset with the rules, or the spirit of the rules . . .
. . . rather the execution of the rules by people that clearly have intentions beyond just ‘following these rules’.
Much could be fixed by simply requiring habeas corpus.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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
