Common sense has prevailed, based on the info available it can not be proven that the Clembuterol was taken to boost his performance, therefore he can not be banned. Simples

Read what I wrote. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. There is strict liability for drugs – it’s up to him to prove his innocence, not anybody else to prove he took the drugs to boost performance. Otherwise it would be pretty much impossible to find anybody guilty of drug taking.

BIGMAN you referring to the muppet that is Ricco!? Who would’ve thought it! Both him and his Mrs are done for doping, he gets done AGAIN then tries his own DIY doping and ends up in hospital whta a d*** he should be banned from ALL sports for life.

Friend met an ex commonwealth long distance medal winner recently, they had an interesting conversation abuot doping in that he stated all long distance runners were at it! Maybe that’s Paula Radcliffe’s problem she isn’t doping enough .. or actually no … she’s just a quitter.

Aracer: – Read what I wrote. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. There is strict liability for drugs – it’s up to him to prove his innocence, not anybody else to prove he took the drugs to boost performance. Otherwise it would be pretty much impossible to find anybody guilty of drug taking

Indeed…similarly the police don’t need to see you drinking beer. A breath or blood test will secure a convinction for drunk driving – I ate some spanish beef before driving through the red lights is not yet something the courts will take heed of.

vi·tu·per·a·tive/v??t(y)o?op??r?tiv/
Adjective: Bitter and abusive

STW is becoming elitist at last!

Ban them! Ban them all!

Common sense has not (so far) prevailed. Once a rider tests positive for a banned substance it is up to him to prove how that substance innocently got in his system. From the information that has been made available it appears that the only evidence that Contador has is his say so. That is not evidence. He should be banned for 2 years under the rules as they stand.

Whether two years is long enough is a different argument. In cases of greyness I would say that it’s probably a little short and should be increased to 3 years from the point of the judgement. In black and white cases I think a 10 year ban needs to be introduced, but only on new cases. Call time on previous doping investigations but draw a line in the sand saying from this point onwards if you get caught you are effectively finished.

As for Ricco, he needs to banned for life for his own safety, he has been a fool but he appears to have already suffered far more than most for his stupidity. At the end of the day it’s cycling and it should not cost anyone their health or worse.

MuppetWrangler I agree with you btu unforatuntely look at the state Pantani ended up in and his untimely and sad, lonely death in a hotel room! I’m fascinated by the drugs seen and the psychology behind it. Have you read Laurent Fignon’s “we were young and carefree” a very honest book where he admits on a few occasions he did coke and it sent him mad basically and scared he living daylights out him, but they were skirting around doping tests in those days and picking and choosing how they ran the testing. Very interesting read.

Munque-chick, thanks for the recommendation I’ll make a mental note for a holiday read.

It was very easy reading as Fignon wrote it himself but I though it was one of THE most engrossing cycling books I’ve read (and I have pretty much read them all!). Plus I’m obssessed with reading about the doping issue. have you read “bad Blood” by Jeremy Whittle that’s good too although it’s quite old now, well it’s about Operation Puerto from 1998 (I think).

Nothing more than you expect from ‘official’ bodies like that.

As mentioned above he also had plasticizers in his blood – he is a cheat.

Road cycling is a tainted sport where every winner in recent years is likely to have had extra help. Does the sport now give riders carte blanche and watch them all die in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s from drug induced complications.

Puerto was 2006

Festina was 1998 😉

Reckon we’re due another biggie though Lance Vs US govt might be just that

Alrigh I was thinking festina in my head but that became Puerto sorry my bad 😉 Anyway you pedant it is still a good book.

On a lighter note, my favourite drugs and cycling story is the one involving Sean Kelly, who to get around the test had a bottle of his mechanics pee concealed in his shorts. Unfortunately the mechanic had been driving late into the night and had self administered a banned substance to help keep him awake.

The full story is in Festina masseur Willy Voet’s memoirs.

don simon – Member
Common sense has prevailed, based on the info available it can not be proven that the Clembuterol was taken to boost his performance, therefore he can not be banned. Simples.

Common sense has nothing to do with it though. The rules are quite clear, unless he can prove that he ingested the substance unknowingly he should get a 2 year ban.

There are several things that make me uncomfortable about all of this, which can be summed up by this quote:

”RFEC President Juan Carlos Castaño says it’s “good news” that Contador has been cleared.”

I don’t care whether he was taking drugs to enhance his performance or not, he was found with a banned substance in him and cannot prove why. Therefore should be banned. If it were a lesser rider i’m sure he would have been too.

Double standards. Google Tom Zirbel and his ban.

Bad Blood is amazing book.

If you have ever road raced you will love “the Rider” by Tim Krabbe.

As for Contador, a temporary repreive. No way he will be allowed to get away with it.

The backlash has started

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/media-reactions-to-contadors-clearing-on-doping-charges

As for clean riders …….N Roche, Wiggins, Van De Velde, Hushovd, Evans ???

Various people saying exactly the same there as I did in my earlier post.

I accidentally ingested several pints of beer while out with WCA last Friday night. 😳

Marge – Member

He actually had trace levels of Clenbuterol in his system for 4 consecutive days during the Tour including the tested level climbing again on the 4th day…
I haven’t seen anything of this, could you point me in the direction of the source of your information, please?

I accidentally ingested several pints of beer while out with WCA last Friday night.

There is no doubting that there was Clembuterol present, so the connection to drinking is a bit puerile. And people have got off DR0 with technicalities on low levels of blood alcohol. Not a valid comparison, but clearly satisfies the blood lust.
I do hope that you have more supporting evidence to back up his guilt. The run down from the RFEC is that Clembuterol can enter the body in 3-4 different ways and the supporting evidence shows that the only logical answer is that systematic doping did not occur.
I understand what the law says, yet clearly no-one is interested in what Contador has to say regarding rule changes and accidental ingestion. He was prepared to throw away his career because of what he believed in. I bet he sleeps alot better at night than the people with the knives out. God forbid we change the rules and progress. Rules is rules and Emily Pankhurst was nothing but a comon criminal! 🙄
On a daily basis I have to deal with a security guard who throws the rules is rules argument at me, I don’t have a positive opinion of him.
Clearly everyone who is shouting conspiracy or ban him has alot more info or knowledge of the machinations of the RFEC, Alberto Contador, UCI and WADA. There may or may not be an appeal based on greater info than the badly translated info put forward by one of the cycling mags!

I will also, unlike some, accept the outcome of any appeals as they come. If he is banned by UCI then he will be banned and have to serve the ban as they will be the facts and reality.

¡Animo Alberto!

He actually had trace levels of Clenbuterol in his system for 4 consecutive days during the Tour including the tested level climbing again on the 4th day…

Linky to article in Dutch
Originally reported in Marca (Spanish paper) but reprinted in the press over here in Belgium including the quantities found.

A quick look in Marca only reports one control on 21/07 in their archives, again if you could point me to the original Marca article, I would be grateful. Again I wouldn’t believe 100% what is being reported in the press. I prefer to get my information first hand and make my own decisions.

see The Inner Ring piece here regarding the 4 tests:
http://inrng.com/?p=739

Their coverage has been excellent and very informative

theres been a few good articles up here

Hehehe…. It’s hilarious the way folks get so wound up about these issues. Cycling is a freak show and should be enjoyed as a spectacle… Or not… whatever your taste. But with the knowledge…if your of sane mind. They all dope and have done since it began. Always have always will. The governing bodies know this and are more interested in keeping the illusion its clean so it can attract money in… They don’t really care for catching the top lads as it puts the sponsors and tv networks off. It’s the way of the world money rules. Sad but true!

@don Simon – what rule changes? The ones that may happen afterthis case? Surely he must be judged by the the current rules, not afny future ones! As said by many people, many times above the current rules call for strict liability under which, from the evidence released, he is due a 2 year ban.

and the supporting evidence shows that the only logical answer is that systematic doping did not occur.

Well indeed it is ! – oh, or cheating I suppose. That might take care of the plasticisers too; I like an elegant theory

As said by many people, many times above the current rules call for strict liability under which, from the evidence released, he is due a 2 year ban.

Or not as he’s not banned. Let’s wait and see what the UCI do. He will accept a ban, if banned, that has never been in doubt. Yes, he is looking to change the rules for the future and not wriggle out of the current situation. 😉

What ever people might think he has been cleared at this point by those who matter and its not up to anyone else to question that. If you don’t agree join the authorities that cleared him.

I do question the whole issue. many people rant on about how doping is bringing the sport into disreute. Well thats easy to solve. Shut up like other sports do. Funny how those most “supportive” of a sport end up trashing it. It happend to motorcycle trail riding. Too many mags pushing it and it grew to the point it was banned. mountain biking is in danger of the same in places.

I could ask whats the problem anyway? is it using un natural products to enhance performance? Whats natural about the diets of these athletes? With my dodgy joints Codeine is as common as cabohydrates in my diet. And i hate carbs and wouldn’t touch them if I could get away with it.
As for protectingthe riders from themselves. Thats only their concern , just like helmets or seat belts. Not anyone else problem.
Touch paper lit just to make one or two bigots think a bit.

Touch paper lit just to make one or two bigots think a bit.

I doubt it.

Or not as he’s not banned. Let’s wait and see what the UCI do. He will accept a ban, if banned, that has never been in doubt. Yes, he is looking to change the rules for the future and not wriggle out of the current situation.

no, not at all. Given all the evidence that has been made public it is clear that he should be banned for 2 years – the rules are quite simple and quite clear! There seems to be no basis for RFEC giving him a 1 year ban and even less basis for waiving the ban altogether. If there is additional evidence which categorically proves the steak he ate was contaminated then Bertie is not helping himself by keeping that private.

Given that other people have been banned for the same thing for 2 years recently (and given the same reason and same lack of proof of that reason) there is seemingly no reason why Bertie should not be banned. I’d be very surprised indeed if WADA didn’t take this further, and if they do given the lack of evidence he will serve a ban.

If he was doping for performance enhancement or not doesn’t matter, the rules (as they currently stand) have been broken and it’s astonishing that RFEC have not handed down a ban.

@mattsccm – you’re missing the point. The question is not whether Contador has doped or not (nor the morality of doping) it’s whether the rules have been broken or not. All the evidence there is shows the rules have been broken and there has been no evidence made public to the contrary. As above, UCI rules state that a 2 year ban should be given.

I personally don’t care if he has been doping or not, only that the rules are applied fairly and evenly.

@pjt201, it’s the UCI rule that has allowed the ban to be rescinded. I for one will accept the decision as final, and I mean the decision/appeals of WADA and UCI. Will the banhimbrigade be able to do the same if the current position is upheld?

Well, the rule that they have rescinded the ban on is article 296 which states:

If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of a Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a
violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under articles 306 to 312

If he can prove this, then fair enough and he should have no qualms in providing the evidence to do so. As it stands, he hasn’t provided this evidence – which doesn’t make him look good. It’s not up to the UCI, RFEC or WADA to prove or investigate this – it’s up to Contador.

The issue is that there has been no evidence made public that shows the ban should be overturned. If this evidence exists there is no reason it should not be made public and I’m sure he would then be exonerated by all. Both Contador and RFEC are bringing themselves into disrepute by not providing this evidence (or some other legitimate, provable reason)

I’m with ANC’s comments! They all do it and most of us accept it, however if they are bending rules to allow riders back in then it’s wrong!

What pjt201 said.

http://inrng.com/?p=1059

Hmm, from this it seems that RFEC based their decision on the amount of clenbuterol not being enough to make a difference so therefore it must have been from a contaminated steak – some pretty big assumptions there and not following the rules as they stand.

“The minimal amount detected could not presume an improvement in sporting performance…
…This brings us to the conclusion that with a high degree of probability the positive detected was a consequence of the consumption of contaminated meat, an act which cannot be assumed or considered as negligent conduct.”

The rules state nothing about probability or there being a limit for the amount of clenbuterol in the system.

All these articles stating content of Clen in the system and plastacisers in his blood are from magazines and papers not from offcal sources!!!

No official body has confirmed any of it!!!

Its press wanting sales unless the whole case is made public.. If the evidence doesn’t exist he cannot be banned..

Yes he has traces of Clen in system but there has been cases across europe of Clen finding its way into food chain.. Even here in the UK…

If you hate road riding and some of the ugly things that go on don’t read the articles or watch it on the box. Simples! 😯

The word on the drug-crazed roadie forum seems to be that the UCI offered 4 options for the +ve, 3 of which were illegal and the 4th was contaminated meat. Contadors lawyers were able to disprove the 3 illegal means (using his biopassport data LOL) therefore only option 4 is a possibility. As European meat is screened for clenbuterol you can use article 296 to get over the strict liability rule – if you have very expensive and crafty lawyers.

WADA should not have strict liability on a substance which is floating around the food chain now that the testing equipment is so sensitive.

The Utterly Corrupt Institution should not allow a protected rider to fail tests and should not allow test results to get leaked while working out how to cover them up. Alledgedly.

If you read the Landis interview with Paul Kimmage on velonation it is pretty obvious at that the very top they are all on it and all know they are on it so it seems fair to me, in a bizarre way.

What is bad is when morons get on the homebrew to try to compete and then nearly kill themselves.

The good thing is he wont be able to show his old ‘form’ again will he.

He’ll know hes watched etc now. So his performances wont be the same.

Michael Ashenden

Another VERY interesting doping article, covers LA’s ’99 positive test. Makes good reading although a bit technical in places.